What was a 6 year old doing at a midnight movie and what was a 6 year old doing seeing this movie in the first place.

Scary. I would expect metal detectors to be used going forward at movie theaters.

vapacersfan

07-20-2012, 08:26 AM

I also heard a 3-4 month old child was injured as well. A 6 year old was DOA at the hospital.

I heard the suspect staged outside of the emergency exit. Not sure metal detectors would have made a diffrence.

UPDATE: Death count has been updated to 12 per NBC and FOX

presto123

07-20-2012, 08:35 AM

Can't have metal detectors everywhere. This could have happened in Wal Mart just as easily.

Unclebuck

07-20-2012, 08:51 AM

I'm not saying or suggesting metal detectors are the answer or even needed, but I expect they will start to be used at movie theaters.

Wonder if they will try to cut back on the midnight showings. I know it has nothing to do with this, but I just wonder if that will be a topic of discussion

RWB

07-20-2012, 08:58 AM

Sad, sad, stuff...... What do you want to bet we're going to hear the guy has been off his meds?

Sparhawk

07-20-2012, 10:19 AM

Geez, I had to wake up to hearing this on the news. Just the horror of it and then getting so pissed off at the shooter. He probably wanted to commit suicide and didn't get the chance. Should have just shot himself instead of killing/hurting so many others.

Although I'm angry at the shooter, I feel so bad for the people killed/wounded and their families. Been praying a lot for them all morning. Hope all the injured make a full recovery.

ECKrueger

07-20-2012, 10:27 AM

Awful news. Definitely praying.

To be honest, I'm surprised nothing like this had happened yet.

idioteque

07-20-2012, 10:31 AM

What was a 6 year old doing at a midnight movie and what was a 6 year old doing seeing this movie in the first place.

Scary. I would expect metal detectors to be used going forward at movie theaters.

Not sure if this is true or not, but apparently he entered the theater through a back entrance and didn't actually buy a ticket.

I knew the owner of the local theater (not a big chain) when I was growing up and when I was a kid he'd keep the exit door propped on certain days so I could just "sneak" back there and watch movies for free. The owner just loved the movies, had tons of money, didn't expect to turn a profit and really didn't care. As a kid, I was always slightly paranoid that someone else would figure it out and break into the theater and kill everyone (I was a paranoid kid). Movie theater crowds are incredibly vulnerable, you're almost as vulnerable there as you are in the shower or something. It is scary but unfortunately I'm surprised it never happened before. Scary world we live in.

Unclebuck

07-20-2012, 10:32 AM

To be honest, I'm surprised nothing like this had happened yet.

I didn't really want to say it, but I was thinking the same thing.

Suaveness

07-20-2012, 10:35 AM

Sad, sad, stuff...... What do you want to bet we're going to hear the guy has been off his meds?

Supposedly one of the media people called his mother and based on the short conversation, she didn't seem surprised and was expecting the worst. So yeah.

Suaveness

07-20-2012, 10:35 AM

Wonder if they will try to cut back on the midnight showings. I know it has nothing to do with this, but I just wonder if that will be a topic of discussion

That won't happen, there's too much money to be made off of midnight showings.

vapacersfan

07-20-2012, 10:40 AM

Not sure if this is true or not, but apparently he entered the theater through a back entrance and didn't actually buy a ticket.

I knew the owner of the local theater (not a big chain) when I was growing up and when I was a kid he'd keep the exit door propped on certain days so I could just "sneak" back there and watch movies for free. The owner just loved the movies, had tons of money, didn't expect to turn a profit and really didn't care. As a kid, I was always slightly paranoid that someone else would figure it out and break into the theater and kill everyone (I was a paranoid kid). Movie theater crowds are incredibly vulnerable, you're almost as vulnerable there as you are in the shower or something. It is scary but unfortunately I'm surprised it never happened before. Scary world we live in.

I have heard two things:

1. The gunman had a ticket and took a call and had all his gear staged

2. The gunamn was outside and was let in by a second individual who was in the theatre who had already bought a ticket

EDIT: now CNN is saying after a interview he may have kicked the door down

Shade

07-20-2012, 10:41 AM

That won't happen, there's too much money to be made off of midnight showings.

Yeah, as horrible as this is, I don't see how mignight movie showings are cultivating an environment for something like this.

Some people are just crazy regardless of the environment.

vapacersfan

07-20-2012, 10:43 AM

What was a 6 year old doing at a midnight movie and what was a 6 year old doing seeing this movie in the first place.

Scary. I would expect metal detectors to be used going forward at movie theaters.

The 3 month old was either going to sleep through the movie or be awake anyway at that time of night and the parents obviously weren't going to be able to get a babysitter,(well more than likely not). Not the first time I've seen a little one like that in the theater.

As for the 6 year old,keep in mind our own childhoods. Being able to stay up past your bedtime was a rare treat and one that was always really cool when it happened. Add in a much anticipated movie like this,and there's a special treat indeed,(choice of movie not withstanding of course). Any other time these two in the theater isn't really noted,(and if it is,probably a few would say "I wouldn't do that). No big deal. At a time like this,it becomes horrible parenting.

While I disagree with bringing children to movie theatres in general (especially if you WONT get up when your kid is yelling and screaming) I dont see this as a big deal

vapacersfan

07-20-2012, 10:44 AM

I have never seen Batman, but now a rumor is he was dressed like Bane.

vapacersfan

07-20-2012, 10:46 AM

Geez, I had to wake up to hearing this on the news. Just the horror of it and then getting so pissed off at the shooter. He probably wanted to commit suicide and didn't get the chance. Should have just shot himself instead of killing/hurting so many others.

Although I'm angry at the shooter, I feel so bad for the people killed/wounded and their families. Been praying a lot for them all morning. Hope all the injured make a full recovery.

He turned himself in (no word if he was surprised by the police) but suppsoedly he did not want to commit suicide.

Not sure what that adds to the discussion, if anything

Unclebuck

07-20-2012, 10:46 AM

On kids in movie theater: no not a big deal. But I'm generally not in favor of kids in movie theaters. Add in the time this screening was and that makes it worse. The only time I was allowed to stay up past my bedtime was new years eve.

On a more general note. I love going to movies. I love going to the movie theater to watch movies. Always have and always will. Movies are always better than at home and it is fun to watch with other people.

idioteque

07-20-2012, 10:48 AM

I am not passing judgement, this is just an observation, but there is absolutely no way my parents would have let me see any of these Batman films when I was six. Maybe my parents were old school or something, but there is no way.

vapacersfan

07-20-2012, 10:48 AM

Yeah, as horrible as this is, I don't see how mignight movie showings are cultivating an environment for something like this.

Some people are just crazy regardless of the environment.

IMO the focus should be less of midnight showings and more on:

A. The easy access a 24 year old had to an assault rifle

B. The violence that we advertise in video games, rap videos, and tv shows/movies

C. We may not want to admit it, but we are desensitized to violence.

D. I heard it while in college, but we are supposedly the most medicated country

E. Along the same lines we also have the most gun violence of any country, even those at war

Take the last 2 for what they are worth....

There are lots of things to look at, not sure a midnight screening of movies is one of them

vapacersfan

07-20-2012, 10:51 AM

UB, I like watching at home better, but that is because I feel people are rude in the theatres and a lot of times will not leave...even if they have screaming babies....they feel entitled to stay because they paid 12.50 per ticket

DC, I have never seen a batman movie, but I tend to agree with you. That said, if my kid did something amazing (pulled straight A's) and he wanted his reward to be a midnight screening of batman.......not sure I see that as a big deal

Since86

07-20-2012, 10:56 AM

IMO the focus should be less of midnight showings and more on:

A. The easy access a 24 year old had to an assault rifle

They have absolutely no clue how he had gotten his weapons. Facts should be brought forth, before conclusions.

As horrible as this is, there's really nothing anyone can do to stop it. Whether or not you believe in the Bible, the moral of the story you should get from Cain and Able is that humans kill each other, and it's been that way since the beginning of time. It's sad to say, but you really can't stop crazy people.

vapacersfan

07-20-2012, 11:00 AM

It has been CONFIRMED by the aurora police chief that this guy has his apartment rigged with explosives

vapacersfan

07-20-2012, 11:03 AM

They have absolutely no clue how he had gotten his weapons. Facts should be brought forth, before conclusions.

As horrible as this is, there's really nothing anyone can do to stop it. Whether or not you believe in the Bible, the moral of the story you should get from Cain and Able is that humans kill each other, and it's been that way since the beginning of time. It's sad to say, but you really can't stop crazy people.

FACT: he got the assult rifle somehow

FACT: he shot people

I agree we needs facts, but regardless of if he got them legally or if he stole them, we CAN and SHOULD still discuss if we as a society need assult rifles.

Look, I am a firm advocate for the 2nd ammendment, and I even support the NRA for the most part. But, AK 47's and M-16's.

I disagree nothing can be done to stop it. There are many things that can be done. Maybe we dont stop everyone and everything, but the chance to stop one of these acts is enough for me to think we need to have discussions to do EVERYTHING we can to do so

Major Cold

07-20-2012, 11:03 AM

A college friend's brother got wounded. He will be alright. But others are not as fortunate.

vapacersfan

07-20-2012, 11:04 AM

Also breaking:

He had an assault rile, shotgun, and handgun (or handguns)

He did not/does not have a hunting license or a CCW

Still talking about the house being booby trapped

RWB

07-20-2012, 11:08 AM

D. I heard it while in college, but we are supposedly the most medicated country

This may very well turn out to be a reason for it.

Since86

07-20-2012, 11:18 AM

This really isn't the place for the political discussion, so I'll make one more comment and bow out on the political side of the discussion. Norway has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world, heck even mase is illegal there, and that didn't stop Anders Behring Breivik from killing 77 people with an assualt rifle either. People find ways to acheive their goals, regardless of the laws in place to stop them. Doesn't mean that I think everyone should have an AK47, but feel good laws don't actually stop people, especially when you consider that a vast majority of guns used for crimes were obtained illegally to begin with.

Prayers go out to all those lives that have been touched by this tragedy.

Sparhawk

07-20-2012, 11:34 AM

My wife works at CNN. She's super busy at the moment. I'll try to get any new details that I can about this.

Sparhawk

07-20-2012, 11:42 AM

James Holmes had four guns -- one "AK-47 style" assault rifle, one 12-guage shotgun and two handguns, according to a federal law enforcement source.

One of the injures is a baby 3 months old

On the apartment:
Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates says the apartment of the suspect in the mass killings at a Colorado movie theater is "apparently booby trapped." Authorities have a camera inside the home, he said, and are trying to determine how to disarm the flammable or explosive material inside. He called the booby trap "pretty sophisticated."

That's all I got right now.

RWB

07-20-2012, 12:08 PM

Here's a link with a picture of the suspect. http://live.denverpost.com/Event/Aurora_Theater_Shooting_July_20_2012

Sandman21

07-20-2012, 12:15 PM

Look at that smirk on his face. Remember it when he claims insanity.

Give him his trial, grant one appeal when hes found guilty, then string the POS up.

Suaveness

07-20-2012, 12:17 PM

Supposedly, according to the news, the shooter was a medical student at Colorado. As a med student myself, it makes me really sad that something like this would happen. I can't presume to know what went through his head, but I would be willing to bet the stress of being in medical school could have certainly contributed to an underlying issue. So sad.

RWB

07-20-2012, 12:23 PM

Look at that smirk on his face. Remember it when he claims insanity.

Give him his trial, grant one appeal when hes found guilty, then string the POS up.

Our normal gut reaction is to think this way, but this guy is/was simply screwed up in the head whether we like it or not. The usual he was bullied and took it out on his classmates won't stack up on this one. Haven't heard anywhere he worked in a theater and got fired (looking for crazy motive).

As for the smirk on his face...??? Looks pretty much like any other college aged person's picture.

Sandman21

07-20-2012, 12:34 PM

Isn't that a mugshot? Nevermind me and my smirk remark if it isn't.

Still hang the punk.

RWB

07-20-2012, 12:42 PM

Nah, the muggy would have some numbers or at least a side profile. Had to deal with a few folks just in the last few months whose heads weren't on straight. Safe to say while many in here think Ron Artest is crazy he's not even close. Nah, there really are people walking amongst us who believe God tells them to do things and were not talking about terrorists.

Side note: Thank goodness for the Taser or there would be a few more Mexican standoffs in the world.

RWB

07-20-2012, 01:13 PM

Another link on this tragedy... Wow...http://www.jordanghawi.com/denver-theatre-shooting-jessica-ghawi/

Bball

07-20-2012, 01:17 PM

IMO the focus should be less of midnight showings and more on:

A. The easy access a 24 year old had to an assault rifle

B. The violence that we advertise in video games, rap videos, and tv shows/movies

C. We may not want to admit it, but we are desensitized to violence.

D. I heard it while in college, but we are supposedly the most medicated country

E. Along the same lines we also have the most gun violence of any country, even those at war

Take the last 2 for what they are worth....

There are lots of things to look at, not sure a midnight screening of movies is one of them

I'd look into our culture's penchant for making people like this a 'star'. I don't think people do this stuff to mimic video games or movies, I think they do it because they want the exposure and the ticket to 'fame'... and they are deranged enough that killing to get 'fame' this way doesn't mean anything to them.

I wonder how much this stuff would happen if it only made the newspapers and his name and photo weren't used? What if television networks decided they'd report the incident, not use the guy's name or any video, and move on... not dwell on it? Same for the internet- text only.

No name, no family names. No hometown mentions. No school connections. Just the report without a lot of details, and especially details about the shooter. IOW... Report the news but go out of their way to make sure the perpetrators get no fame out of their actions.

graphic-er

07-20-2012, 01:31 PM

DISAGREE, DISAGREE, DISAGREE!

IMO the focus should be less of midnight showings and more on:

A. The easy access a 24 year old had to an assault rifle We give 18 year olds assault rifles and call them heroes! There isn't really a mental test to join the military. Only training. So you can train a psycho to shoot a gun, doesn't make him less of a psycho.

B. The violence that we advertise in video games, rap videos, and tv shows/movies Please, violence in the media doesn't have any effect on a person's ability to reason or make them more inclined to commit violent acts. Its all about up bringing. Did you come from a loving family, did you have good role models, etc... Seeing somebody on TV stab somebody as part of enterainment is worlds away from actually holding a knife yourself and stabbing another person yourself.

C. We may not want to admit it, but we are desensitized to violence. This too is utter ********, people are desensitized to media. The fact is most people are extremely fearful of violence. Most people will not stop and help somebody getting beat up or jumped because they are fearful getting themselves in to a bad situation. We are a country that is fearful.

D. I heard it while in college, but we are supposedly the most medicated country very true, because we have a terrible healthcare system that only treats symptoms and not causes

E. Along the same lines we also have the most gun violence of any country, even those at war this is also very true, but it has very little to do with guns. Its lack of education and family values.

Take the last 2 for what they are worth....

There are lots of things to look at, not sure a midnight screening of movies is one of them

vapacersfan

07-20-2012, 01:40 PM

I would love to continue this (and I had plenty of rebutals for the film arguement since I worked in Law Enforcement and majored in film and theatre) but this place has a 0 tolerance on discussing politics.

I will simply leave with I think there are lots of things to look at, and simply saying "wow this sucks. I hope it doesnt happen again" is not acceptable.

Nuntius

07-20-2012, 01:40 PM

Well, the story made headlines in my country as well. I'm very sorry, guys. What an awful event :(

neosmndrew

07-20-2012, 01:41 PM

I pushed my planned viewing of this film back to Saturday due to utter disgust and horror. My feelings and thoughts go out to those affected by these shootings. I don't want to bring the high school debator out in me, but I'll say this: Video games do not teach people to be violent. I got my first M-rated game when I was 5, and I am not at all a violent person.

What have we become? I wonder how the NRA will portray this one. Yes, I know it was a man doing the killing not the gun but when will we learn that some people should not be allowed to have guns? :cool:

vapacersfan

07-20-2012, 01:48 PM

Do you know he was one who should not have one?

Could you predict he would go nutty and do this shooting?

ECKrueger

07-20-2012, 01:48 PM

I pushed my planned viewing of this film back to Saturday due to utter disgust and horror. My feelings and thoughts go out to those affected by these shootings. I don't want to bring the high school debator out in me, but I'll say this: Video games do not teach people to be violent. I got my first M-rated game when I was 5, and I am not at all a violent person.

...and I was not allowed to play violent video games as a child. Not violent at all.

vapacersfan

07-20-2012, 01:48 PM

Heard a rumor the gunman told police he was "The Joker"

graphic-er

07-20-2012, 01:51 PM

First off, I have no problem with disagreement, but its funny when someone opinion is called "wrong" and then told the others persons opinion. I could post "wrong wrong wrong no no no" three times and state my opinion again, perhaps even in caps, but I digress.

I would love to continue this (and I had plenty of rebutals for the film arguement since I worked in Law Enforcement and majored in film and theatre) but this place has a 0 tolerance on discussing politics.

I will simply leave with I think there are lots of things to look at, and simply saying "wow this sucks. I hope it doesnt happen again" is not acceptable.

There, I edited my post. You are no longer wrong.
I find it even more hilarious that you would take offense to that, I never said my counter points were facts, nor did I back them up with sources. So I don't know why you are treating them as such.

OlBlu

07-20-2012, 01:52 PM

Do you know he was one who should not have one?

Could you predict he would go nutty and do this shooting?

No, I couldn't predict that but I can predict that when hand guns and assault rifles are easy to obtain, tragedies like this will be the result.....:cool:

RWB

07-20-2012, 01:52 PM

I'd look into our culture's penchant for making people like this a 'star'.

I would think some of this is a great possibility. The Columbine pukes would fit into this category. With this I don't know, but considering how well it was thought out it's not a snap judgment sort of thing. The snap incidents are usually family related and the perp doesn't take out the whole world.

vapacersfan

07-20-2012, 01:55 PM

There, I edited my post. You are no longer wrong.
I find it even more hilarious that you would take offense to that, I never said my counter points were facts, nor did I back them up with sources. So I don't know why you are treating them as such.

Yeah, I edited my post as well.

I found it hilarious you started your post that way, but maybe it was just the way I read it.

vapacersfan

07-20-2012, 01:58 PM

No, I couldn't predict that but I can predict that when hand guns and assault rifles are easy to obtain, tragedies like this will be the result.....:cool:

Plenty of people own handguns and dont go out shooting up people.....but I digress

graphic-er

07-20-2012, 02:01 PM

Yeah, I edited my post as well.

I found it hilarious you started your post that way, but maybe it was just the way I read it.
I just strongly disagree'd with the issues you brought up, it was a very quick hit of the reply button.

Apparently his hair was dyed red, told cops he was the Joker. Also the fact that he seems to have left bombs in his house seems to mirror the Joker blowing up that hospital. Yikes.

Bball

07-20-2012, 02:54 PM

FBI agents and police used a hook and ladder fire truck to reach Holmes’ apartment in suburban Denver, Aurora police Chief Dan Oates said. They put a camera at the end of 12-foot pole inside the apartment, and discovered that the unit was booby trapped. Authorities evacuated five buildings as they determine how to disarm flammable and explosive material.

How in the world did they know to do that and not just barge into his apartment? Surely they wouldn't just be this cautious even for a case like this would they?

Since86

07-20-2012, 03:00 PM

He told them that his apartment was booby trapped.

Bball

07-20-2012, 03:02 PM

He told them that his apartment was booby trapped.

So they fed him his meds when they caught him....

Unclebuck

07-20-2012, 03:13 PM

How in the world did they know to do that and not just barge into his apartment? Surely they wouldn't just be this cautious even for a case like this would they?

I bet they would as a pre-caution.

Merz

07-20-2012, 03:22 PM

...and I was not allowed to play violent video games as a child. Not violent at all.

No one claims NOT playing violent video games makes one violent...so what is your point?

If you had played those games do you honestly think you would be violent?

Unclebuck

07-20-2012, 03:40 PM

Evidently he told them his apartment was booby trapped

vapacersfan

07-20-2012, 05:23 PM

A federal law enforcement official told The Associated Press that the suspect bought a ticket and went into the theater as part of the crowd. He is believed to have propped open an exit door as the movie was playing, the official said.

Sandman21

07-20-2012, 07:26 PM

I still think we should hang the piece of crap.

Stryder

07-20-2012, 07:37 PM

Law is the law is the law. Due process for even the most heinous acts.

In the end, he'll get what's coming to him. Somehow, someway it always catches up with a person. I'm not even worrying about the guy for that reason.

I think we need to continue to keep the victims in our thoughts and keep positive energy flowing their way. It certainly makes you think about your friends and family and shows you what is truly important in life.

Peace be with them.

Stryder

Heisenberg

07-20-2012, 07:37 PM

He had a bomb in his apartment that was supposed to go off before the attack but didn't. It was supposed to distract the police so he'd have more time to murder people.

Sandman21

07-20-2012, 07:51 PM

Law is the law is the law. Due process for even the most heinous acts.
Oh, absolutely give him his fair trial and 1 appeal once he gets found guilty. Then hang the POS.

OlBlu

07-20-2012, 07:54 PM

Oh, absolutely give him his fair trial and 1 appeal once he gets found guilty. Then hang the POS.

Do you not see the irony in this? We are the only country in the world who makes arms available so easily and has disasters like this. We are also among the last countries in the world who still use capital punishment. Kill, kill, kill and that seems to be all that we know.... Put him in prison for life and study him to find out what makes him tick and try to prevent another just like him....:cool:

vapacersfan

07-20-2012, 08:00 PM

Do you not see the irony in this? We are the only country in the world who makes arms available so easily and has disasters like this. We are also among the last countries in the world who still use capital punishment. Kill, kill, kill and that seems to be all that we know.... Put him in prison for life and study him to find out what makes him tick and try to prevent another just like him....:cool:

Link?

Best I could find was this: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html/

During 2010, 23 countries executed 527 prisoners and at least 2,024 people were sentenced to death in 67 countries. More than 17,833 people are currently under sentence of death around the world.

I have no problem with the death penalty in limited cases, but I also realize it is cheaper to keep an individual for LIP vice the death penalty

Also, you might want to list the countries that use the death penalty as opposed to those who do not. Then decide which countries you want the USA to emulate.....:cool:

spreedom

07-20-2012, 09:15 PM

IMO the focus should be less of midnight showings and more on:

A. The easy access a 24 year old had to an assault rifle

B. The violence that we advertise in video games, rap videos, and tv shows/movies

I'm glad you included these two because I think they're worth discussing. For one thing, why in the hell are assault weapons even legal to buy? He allegedly bought all of the weapons he used through legal means. I'm not 1000% opposed to the right to bear arms, but there is no logical reason for anyone in the private sector to own an assault weapon. Ever.

And on your second point, I think it is embarrassing when people blame movies, music, or video games for violent behavior. Entertainment doesn't force anyone to make conscious decisions to commit these heinous acts, and I hope that TDKR doesn't become a target for the Geraldos of the world to leech off of.

Bball

07-20-2012, 11:04 PM

I'm not saying or suggesting metal detectors are the answer or even needed, but I expect they will start to be used at movie theaters.

Wonder if they will try to cut back on the midnight showings. I know it has nothing to do with this, but I just wonder if that will be a topic of discussion

I don't think so... Unless you have armed guards somewhere in the nearby vicinity. It's not going to do you much good to find out the nut in the red dyed hair is carrying a gun if you can't do anything about it besides say "You've got a gun! Everyone, this guy has a gun! You can't bring that in here"

And so he draws it and shoots up the lobby full of people instead of inside the theater itself like he'd planned.

So unless you're prepared to put armed guards in the lobbies of theaters then I don't think you'll see metal detectors either.

Heisenberg

07-20-2012, 11:08 PM

There's already tons of theaters with metal detectors, and security. At the presser today the Chief (?) of Police in Aurora said on weekends off duty cops work security there.

Lance George

07-20-2012, 11:12 PM

What are the crime-rates in Liberal-voting counties vs. the crime-rates in Conservative-voting counties? Just curious.

Speaking on behalf of the cast and crew of The Dark Knight Rises, I would like to express our profound sorrow at the senseless tragedy that has befallen the entire Aurora community. I would not presume to know anything about the victims of the shooting, but that they were there last night to watch a movie. I believe movies are one of the great American art forms and the shared experience of watching a story unfold on screen is an important and joyful pastime. The movie theatre is my home, and the idea that someone would violate that innocent and hopeful place in such an unbearably savage way is devastating to me. Nothing any of us can say could ever adequately express our feelings for the innocent victims of this appalling crime, but our thoughts are with them and their families,

cdash

07-21-2012, 12:06 AM

What are the crime-rates in Liberal-voting counties vs. the crime-rates in Conservative-voting counties? Just curious.

This is the first step towards getting this thread banned. Let's leave the political stuff alone. Crazy is crazy is crazy.

Sandman21

07-21-2012, 12:09 AM

I don't think so... Unless you have armed guards somewhere in the nearby vicinity. It's not going to do you much good to find out the nut in the red dyed hair is carrying a gun if you can't do anything about it besides say "You've got a gun! Everyone, this guy has a gun! You can't bring that in here"

And so he draws it and shoots up the lobby full of people instead of inside the theater itself like he'd planned.

So unless you're prepared to put armed guards in the lobbies of theaters then I don't think you'll see metal detectors either.

It sounds like metal detectors wouldn't have helped in this case if he slipped out an emergency exit and propped the door open when he went to his car.

presto123

07-21-2012, 04:36 AM

We always want to categorize and find reason and a motive for senseless acts but there are crazy and scary people out there and always will be. People find it scary and incomprehensible that you can just be in the wrong place at the wrong time and your life can come to an end and that's understandable. But it is harsh reality. All the more reason to cherish every moment and to tell all the people that you care about just how you feel.

vapacersfan

07-21-2012, 08:17 AM

I don't think so... Unless you have armed guards somewhere in the nearby vicinity. It's not going to do you much good to find out the nut in the red dyed hair is carrying a gun if you can't do anything about it besides say "You've got a gun! Everyone, this guy has a gun! You can't bring that in here"

And so he draws it and shoots up the lobby full of people instead of inside the theater itself like he'd planned.

So unless you're prepared to put armed guards in the lobbies of theaters then I don't think you'll see metal detectors either.

Agreed

FWIW off duty police sometimes work at that theater, but none were working that night

vapacersfan

07-21-2012, 08:20 AM

Do you not see the irony in this? We are the only country in the world who makes arms available so easily and has disasters like this. We are also among the last countries in the world who still use capital punishment. Kill, kill, kill and that seems to be all that we know.... Put him in prison for life and study him to find out what makes him tick and try to prevent another just like him....:cool:

I keep thinking about the last part of your post.

Surely we should have had time to study folks like the unibomber and other murderers/crazy people, who we never put to death but who are rotting in prison.

Like the poster above me said, sometimes crazy is just crazy and no matter what we do we will never understand it

vapacersfan

07-21-2012, 08:35 AM

Whoa. They're putting things together. Watching the Evening News and this guy really thought and planned this out. Somewhat similar to the shootings and bombings Norway. Set up a diversion then go somewhere else to do the shooting.

Edit: Apparently he told police that they may find explosives in his apartment. Not booby traps. They believe this was a trap. When they got there,they were careful and that's when they found what was waiting. What they believe he had planned was this. He wired things in the house so that music would play loudly sometime around midnight. This was supposed to get people to call the police to complain about the noise. Police show up,investigate noise and sooner rather than later,make their way in to the apartment setting off the bomb. This would draw police to that location which would leave a smaller police presence to respond to the shootings at the theater,(4 miles away). Giving him more time to,well.....

It seems that all of the guns and ammunition was purchased legally..... http://news.yahoo.com/police-colo-shooting-suspect-bought-guns-legally-083528305.html :cool:

vapacersfan

07-21-2012, 08:47 AM

Yeah, I just read he purchased everything online in the last 30-60 days

AR-15 (this was one of the weapons he had. Supposedly he purchased it last month, but I only heard that once via CNN. I was still half asleep, but if correct I cant even imagine that spraying bullets....)

http://www.tcdarmament.com/images/ar15.jpg

vapacersfan

07-21-2012, 08:49 AM

Just heard from someone here in DC. A young Navy personnel was pronounced dead this morning. Two others injured. 1 unable to be located

vapacersfan

07-21-2012, 08:50 AM

100 round drum that he reportedly used with that AR 15

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j362/oduskins24/DSC06281.jpg

vapacersfan

07-21-2012, 02:25 PM

2nd service member that died from injuries identified as SSGT Jesse Childress.

Edit: If I'm hearing this right,the 6 year old girl was confirmed as one of those that died? and her mom is in ICU and doesn't know. She's sedated right now. http://www.extremeskins.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

"1st threat",the trip wire set up at the door,was defeated. They are now working on the 2nd threat. The explosive device itself. They are still assessing the second threat and whether or not they will trigger a controlled detonation.

vapacersfan

07-21-2012, 02:25 PM

CNN saying the identity of a 7th fatality has been uncovered,(Facebook). Young man who was a high school student. http://www.extremeskins.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

vapacersfan

07-21-2012, 03:16 PM

So far I counted 9 victims publicly identified (since their families are releasing the information they must know):
Veronica Moser: 6 year old, mom is in ICU. Dad did television interviews on Friday was angry in hospital and couldn't see his wife.
Jessica Ghawi: 24 year old, sportscaster, I think she was the first whose identity was known.
Alex Sullivan: 27 years old, went to celebrate his birthday. He was the one whose dad was frantically trying to find his son on Friday.
Matt McQuinn: 27 years old, was shot while saving his girlfriend.
Micala Medek: 23 years old. Friends were trying to carry her out but emergency responders told them to leave her.
John Larimer: 27 years old, Petty Officer 3rd class with US Navy.
Jesse Childress: Unknown age. Staff Sgt with Air Force.
AJ Boik: 17, into comic books.
Alex Teves: 24, Phoenix, AZ, a therapist.

vapacersfan

07-21-2012, 03:17 PM

10th victim (unconfirmed): Jon Blunk: Pushed girlfriend under seat and lying against her

vapacersfan

07-21-2012, 03:18 PM

Eyewitnesses reported seeing ~ 13 year old girl as one of the first victims.

Bball

07-21-2012, 05:06 PM

Whoa. They're putting things together. Watching the Evening News and this guy really thought and planned this out. Somewhat similar to the shootings and bombings Norway. Set up a diversion then go somewhere else to do the shooting.

Edit: Apparently he told police that they may find explosives in his apartment. Not booby traps. They believe this was a trap. When they got there,they were careful and that's when they found what was waiting. What they believe he had planned was this. He wired things in the house so that music would play loudly sometime around midnight. This was supposed to get people to call the police to complain about the noise. Police show up,investigate noise and sooner rather than later,make their way in to the apartment setting off the bomb. This would draw police to that location which would leave a smaller police presence to respond to the shootings at the theater,(4 miles away). Giving him more time to,well.....

I'd say the plan was for a neighbor to come up to the room to check on the noise, see the unlocked door, try it, and that sets off the explosion which would then draw police to the apts. Not for them to call police to complain, drawing a policeman to be the first to open the door and trigger the explosion.

If it was to specifically get a police office to his apartment and open the door then he could've reported the loud music himself to police to better setup what he had planned. ...Of course it's always possible he did that and they didn't respond like planned I guess.

Natston

07-21-2012, 05:12 PM

Yeah this are many more questions to be answered, for starters how does an unemployed college student get military style body armor and the ammo cache? This is situation is going to get uglier or swept under a rug...

Sollozzo

07-21-2012, 05:19 PM

Yeah this are many more questions to be answered, for starters how does an unemployed college student get military style body armor and the ammo cache? This is situation is going to get uglier or swept under a rug...

He was enrolled in school until just last month, right? My guess is that he took out the max in student loans before dropping out so he could pay for this, but that's just a pure guess.

Heisenberg

07-21-2012, 05:24 PM

He was enrolled in school until just last month, right? My guess is that he took out the max in student loans before dropping out so he could pay for this, but that's just a pure guess.

Possibly that, and his parents lived in a ~350k house, I'm sure he had a decent student "allowance."

It's not difficult. One can buy guns, ammo, armor, stuff to make explosives, chemicals, drugs, etc. over th Internet.

Steagles

07-21-2012, 06:22 PM

The shooter guy was nuts... let's just hope the justice system disagrees.

OlBlu

07-21-2012, 06:24 PM

It's not difficult. One can buy guns, ammo, armor, stuff to make explosives, chemicals, drugs, etc. over th Internet.

And how sick that is...... One can also find plans and formula for atomic bombs..... and dirty bombs....:cool:

vapacersfan

07-21-2012, 06:48 PM

Yeah this are many more questions to be answered, for starters how does an unemployed college student get military style body armor and the ammo cache? This is situation is going to get uglier or swept under a rug...

He supposedly worked at a hospital until last month

xBulletproof

07-21-2012, 07:39 PM

Plenty of people own handguns and dont go out shooting up people.....but I digress

Plenty of people own assault rifles and don't go shooting up people too, like me and my friends. In fact, here's mine.

577

It's not difficult. One can buy guns, ammo, armor, stuff to make explosives, chemicals, drugs, etc. over th Internet.

Actually when you buy guns online they are mailed to a federal firearm licensed dealer, AKA a local licensed store. Then you fill out the usual paperwork to purchase the gun with background checks and all included. You don't just buy them online, and they mail them to your house.

----

Also, if the stories I've heard are true and it was a fully automatic weapon (which an AR-15, is not) then he was in possession of a weapon that required federal permits and all kinds of issues that take months to get ahold of. Plus they generally cost $10,000 or more for fully automatic weapons. I SEVERELY doubt he had a fully automatic weapon. Even for a silencer on a PS-90 my buddy has to have a ton of paperwork to even legally move it. Let alone fully automatics which are much more dangerous.

He may have however had a bump fire attachment on an AR-15, which is (somehow) legal and I've messed with one. It works easy as pie at making an AR-15 into a fully automatic weapon. Here's a video on that. I do believe this should be illegal, and if he used one I'm sure it will be soon.

After incidents like this I question how much we (as a society) need weapons like that. I am a full advocate of the 2nd amendment, but when is it too much

Thats a tough call to make, but I think its a discussion we should at least have.

We can never prevent evil, but surely we can do things to help curtail it, no?

Just thinking out loud, not addressing this to anyone

vapacersfan

07-21-2012, 08:06 PM

And how sick that is...... One can also find plans and formula for atomic bombs..... and dirty bombs....:cool:

The internet has some good and some bad.

Granted the internet isnt the only place. What is the name of that book? The antichrist cookbook

OlBlu

07-21-2012, 08:08 PM

The internet has some good and some bad.

Granted the internet isnt the only place. What is the name of that book? The antichrist cookbook

How about The Anarchist Cookbook.....:cool:

xBulletproof

07-21-2012, 08:41 PM

Where do you draw the line? My next gun is a pistol, which you seem okay with. Yet, this pistol can penetrate and kill through body armor. Is that allowed then? That's just as dangerous as an AR-15. Then what? .50 cal handguns? Then .44 handguns because they're too powerful?

Once you blur that line, it's bound to keep moving in a direction that ends up but nowhere except with a complete ban.

It doesn't matter what you ban, anyway. The people wanting to break the law don't care and will get it. You're just taking it out of the hands of people who want to defend themselves. It may not seem like an all or nothing to you, but to the people pushing for that eventuality are just waiting for their foot to be in the door, and once it happens, they won't stop.

vapacersfan

07-21-2012, 08:49 PM

Where do you draw the line? My next gun is a pistol, which you seem okay with. Yet, this pistol can penetrate and kill through body armor. Is that allowed then? That's just as dangerous as an AR-15. Then what? .50 cal handguns? Then .44 handguns because they're too powerful?

Once you blur that line, it's bound to keep moving in a direction that ends up but nowhere except with a complete ban.

It doesn't matter what you ban, anyway. The people wanting to break the law don't care and will get it. You're just taking it out of the hands of people who want to defend themselves. It may not seem like an all or nothing to you, but to the people pushing for that eventuality are just waiting for their foot to be in the door, and once it happens, they won't stop.

I agree criminals will find a way to get it, but if getting assault rifles off the street prevents one crime, then I am fine with that. IMO a common guy or gal on the street does not need an AK 47 or AR-15 (besides to look cool, and trust me I find it badass when I see one at the range or even a gunshow). If it stops one senseless act of violence, then I saw yes getting assult rifles out of "easy access" is worth it. Will that prevent bad things from happening? No, but that doesnt mean we should have the conversation.

I disagree with your last points. I think the attitude that it will always end up all or nothing is what causes us problems. Surely we can find a comprise between "ban everything" and "allow everything, 2nd amendment freedom, guns, hell yeah"

P.S. Good point about them not shipping to someones home. I never realized it, but it seems a lot of people think it happens that way

xBulletproof

07-21-2012, 09:50 PM

There are people plotting how to ban guns today going from 0 to ban immediately. You think with the idea of stopping anything by banning AR's won't find it's way to be precedence for banning pistols? Of course it would. The damage done by AR's on a yearly basis probably isn't even in the same galaxy as the number for pistols.

They would be all over that like stink on ****.

Stryder

07-21-2012, 11:40 PM

Knee jerk reactions are never a good thing. Usually cause more harm than good in all facets of life.

vapacersfan

07-21-2012, 11:41 PM

So what is your solution to stop a tragedy like this from happening again (and rest assured it will).

I am just so sick and tired of hearing "RIP", "were sorry", "man this sucks, RIP", etc. when this happens.

Not trying to be morbid here, but how long until we have another mass shooting? 1 month? 2 months? 3 months?

Honestly, I give it 4-6 weeks. And that is scary as hell. It almost doesn't even surprise me any more.

I have lots of friends who are arguing C.C.W. is the answer, but in a dark room where the guy throws off two devices (smoke bombs?) I am not sure how much of an impact it would have. Not to mention he was wearing body armor, a mask of some type, and a bullet proof vest

vapacersfan

07-21-2012, 11:41 PM

Knee jerk reactions are never a good thing. Usually cause more harm than good in all facets of life.

And doing nothing is never a good thing.

Stryder

07-21-2012, 11:55 PM

And doing nothing is never a good thing.

No one said nothing is being done. But in the end if nothing needs to be done, then so be it. Gathering the facts and understanding the situation is the most important first step. Got to take the first steps first.

We've seen knee jerk reactions in all walks of life fail miserably (similar to the miserable failure that is the war on drugs, but that is a political discussion which shouldn't occur here). It's like our first inclination after a tragedy is to restrict current rights or take away rights by passing legislation or banning things. We've seen time and time and time again that this mode of operating does not work in the slightest.

Stryder

07-22-2012, 12:03 AM

So what is your solution to stop a tragedy like this from happening again (and rest assured it will).

I am just so sick and tired of hearing "RIP", "were sorry", "man this sucks, RIP", etc. when this happens.

Not trying to be morbid here, but how long until we have another mass shooting? 1 month? 2 months? 3 months?

Honestly, I give it 4-6 weeks. And that is scary as hell. It almost doesn't even surprise me any more.

I have lots of friends who are arguing C.C.W. is the answer, but in a dark room where the guy throws off two devices (smoke bombs?) I am not sure how much of an impact it would have. Not to mention he was wearing body armor, a mask of some type, and a bullet proof vest

You will never stop these from occurring. Some people are mentally disturbed, with or without drugs. What makes you think another event like this will occur soon? This seems to be an isolated incident of a disturbed individual.

CCW makes no difference here though even thought couple of well placed bullets in to his body armor would have knocked him on his butt. The vast majority of people don't have the proper training to step up in these situations. Most people's flight or fight response would tell them to get the heck out of Dodge with their loved ones at the first sign of danger. Nothing wrong with that either as it's human nature.

xBulletproof

07-22-2012, 12:15 AM

Let's put this in perspective for myself by the way, my name is "xBulletproof" because I've been shot, and survived. You may have seen me state that before, but to clearly understand my situation in reading about this, I was at a movie theater as well. So this thing hits home with me a bit more than I'm sure for anyone else. As soon as I read about it, my first thought was "omg I know what those people are going through" .... those who survived. I myself can remember sitting there bleeding all over the place, not knowing if I was going to live waiting for an ambulance. My 2nd thought was, "****, here come the post traumatic stress nightmares again".

So if anyone should be knee jerk about this thing, it should probably be me. :laugh: Yet, I just know how man works. If it wasn't an AR, it would be a pistol or two. If it wasn't that, it would be a chemical mixture of household materials that exploded and maimed people when he threw it in the crowd. If it wasn't that, he'd be going all Legolas Greenleaf on them with a bow and arrow.

A psycho is a psycho. He'll find a way. To be honest, and as heartless as it sounds I believe the best route is to stop giving these things media coverage. I truthfully believe these people do this for attention, and fame. Take away the attention, and I would bet they stop occurring so often. No matter what the weapon of choice.

Sandman21

07-22-2012, 01:32 AM

The shooter guy was nuts... let's just hope the justice system disagrees.

The fact that he attempted to create a diversion by blowing up his apartment shows me that he was in control all along. I know people want to try and rehabilitate prisoners and all, but this guy was willing to kill a 6 year old CHILD, among others. There is no hope for him. Give him his trial and appeal, then hang him.

Sandman21

07-22-2012, 01:39 AM

I have lots of friends who are arguing C.C.W. is the answer, but in a dark room where the guy throws off two devices (smoke bombs?) I am not sure how much of an impact it would have. Not to mention he was wearing body armor, a mask of some type, and a bullet proof vest
We'll never know for sure (I believe that Aurora bans CC, but we just had an incident back in December here in Indy where a punk stuck an object in the back of a Kroger security worker and tried to hold up a story, thinking that nobody would be armed. Imagine his surprise when the store manager happened to be packing. Oops! Scumbag punk becomes DEAD scumbag punk), but I've noticed that this crap almost ALWAYS occurs at a place that has a "gun-free-zone" policy.....

Heisenberg

07-22-2012, 03:52 AM

If you think Average Joe Public with his concealed weapon would've pulled a Dirty Harry and stood up in the middle of a haze of tear gas and gun fire and hundreds of people literally running for their lives only to pull his piece and do anything but harm more civilians, I honestly don't know what world you live in. Certainly not one based in any grounds of reality.

But hey, it happened at a movie theater, so we can all be movie heroes right? This is real life.

Bball

07-22-2012, 05:20 AM

So if anyone should be knee jerk about this thing, it should probably be me. :laugh: Yet, I just know how man works. If it wasn't an AR, it would be a pistol or two. If it wasn't that, it would be a chemical mixture of household materials that exploded and maimed people when he threw it in the crowd. If it wasn't that, he'd be going all Legolas Greenleaf on them with a bow and arrow.

He probably chose the weapons he did precisely because there's this undercurrent of doing away with the 2nd amendment, or specifically altering the interpretation to ban assault rifles. So, for maximum exposure he made sure he had an assault rifle.

IOW, I fear it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuated by media over-exposure. The more the anti-gun movement beats the drum for banning guns then the more likely some media whore nut-case will be likely to choose the most popular weapon(s) on the potential ban list for maximum dramatic effect (and media exposure).

I doubt someone like this guy was killing to kill (like a terrorists would be), instead I think he was just going for shock value and the media has made mass murder like this a ticket to instant fame. Tag on an assault rifle and go for the ultimate in shock value. Perfect to get media and lawmakers' attention. So, if you have a screw loose and would like to go out in a blaze of glory, it's your ticket to the big time. 6 months from now, once he's back on his meds and has time to really think about his 'future', and the news cycle done with him, he's probably going to think "That was a really bad idea....".

It reminds me of an old report Paul Harvey did one time. He started the report talking about a hair dresser that wanted us to know Elvis Presley's hair had been dyed and had actually started turning gray before he died. He spoke on this for a little bit giving a little background on this whistleblower hair dresser, and then said "And this hairdresser would like you to know his name... Page TWO"... And he moved on never saying the guy's name. Talk about making a point! I think it's a relevant point to these senseless acts we're seeing now. Don't give them the fame they are seeking. Some of them might be satisfied to see the carnage on the screen but I bet most want to see their name and photo attached to the carnage. They want to see their name attached to calls for law changes. They want to see the experts on TV discussing WHY they did it.

Of course maybe Alfred is right and some people just want to see the world burn....

vapacersfan

07-22-2012, 10:48 AM

Good discussion from all involved.

I am kind of torn, and I honestly agree we shouldn't over-react, but I do think we need to act.

That said, I whole heatedly agree about the whole media coverage angle

BBall, I love that story! I grew up listening to Paul Harvey every time we went on a trip of any kind, and to this day I smile a bit when I hear the tag line "and know you know, the rest of the story. Paul Harvey.....Good day"

spreedom

07-22-2012, 11:02 AM

Plenty of people own assault rifles and don't go shooting up people too, like me and my friends. In fact, here's mine.

No offense, but why the hell do you feel like you need to own an assault rifle? Are you in any of the armed forces? Otherwise there is zero reason to own one.

AURORA, Colo. (AP) — The semiautomatic assault rifle used by the gunman in a mass shooting at a midnight showing of the latest Batman movie jammed during the attack, a federal law enforcement official told The Associated Press, which forced the shooter to switch to another gun with less fire power.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to in order to discuss the investigation, said the disabled weapon had a high-capacity ammunition magazine. Police have said that a 100-round drum magazine was recovered at the scene and that such a device would be able to fire 50 to 60 rounds a minute.

That account of what happened inside the Century 16 theater emerged with other details of a suspect described as a budding scientist, brimming with potential, who pursued a graduate program even as he planned the attack with "calculation and deliberation," police said Saturday.

James Holmes, 24, received shipments that authorities believe armed him for battle and were used to booby trap his home with dozens of bombs.

_________

Holmes received several mail deliveries over four months to his home and school and bought thousands rounds of ammunition on the Internet.

"He had a high volume of deliveries," Oates said. "We think this explains how he got his hands on the magazine, ammunition," he said, as well as the rigged explosives in his apartment.

"What we're seeing here is evidence of some calculation and deliberation," Oates added.

Inside the apartment, FBI Special agent James Yacone said bomb technicians neutralized what he called a "hypergolic mixture" and an improvised explosive device containing an unknown substance. There also were multiple containers of accelerants.

vapacersfan

07-22-2012, 11:11 AM

You guys been following the story of this dude Jamie Rohrs? He was one of the survivors of the shooting. Anyways, there are two debates surrounding him and his family.

1 - He had his 4 year old daughter and 4 month old son at the midnight viewing.

2 - when the shooting happened, he left his girlfriend and children in the theater and got himself out. A 19 year old man ended up helping his girlfriend and kids get out of the theater (subsequently got shot in the leg) after Rohrs abandoned his family.

Patricia Legarreta and Jamie Rohrs were in attendance at the midnight showing of Batman: The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado early Friday morning when a gunman opened fire, killing 12. The couple caught the attention of the media after it was revealed they were at the movie with their 4-month-old son and Legarreta’s 4-year-old daughter.

Patricia suffered a minor bullet wound, but both children and Jamie were unharmed – Jamie due in part to the fact that he bolted from the theater, leaving Patricia to fend for herself and their two children.

The couple appeared on Piers Morgan Tonight where an emotional Jamie Rohrs described what happened:

article/vid in link:

http://starcasm.net/archives/166784

vapacersfan

07-22-2012, 11:11 AM

Jarell Brooks: Theater Shooting Hero Helped Mom While Boyfriend Jamie Rohrs Ran Out
July 21, 2012 12:10 PM EDT
comments: 7
A 19-year-old man stepped up when he saw a young mother and her children in danger the night of the Batman premier theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado. Jarell Brooks is by all accounts a hero, but he doesn't want you to think of him that way. However, he very possibly saved three lives early Friday morning, and for that, he deserves the highest praise one can get.

He said Legarreta called him from another phone and he drove back to the theater. They were eventually taken to the hospital and released.

ECKrueger

07-22-2012, 11:30 AM

No one claims NOT playing violent video games makes one violent...so what is your point?

If you had played those games do you honestly think you would be violent?

Point is that there is no correlation between playing video games and being violent.

Peck

07-22-2012, 12:58 PM

You guys been following the story of this dude Jamie Rohrs? He was one of the survivors of the shooting. Anyways, there are two debates surrounding him and his family.

1 - He had his 4 year old daughter and 4 month old son at the midnight viewing.

2 - when the shooting happened, he left his girlfriend and children in the theater and got himself out. A 19 year old man ended up helping his girlfriend and kids get out of the theater (subsequently got shot in the leg) after Rohrs abandoned his family.

Patricia Legarreta and Jamie Rohrs were in attendance at the midnight showing of Batman: The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado early Friday morning when a gunman opened fire, killing 12. The couple caught the attention of the media after it was revealed they were at the movie with their 4-month-old son and Legarreta’s 4-year-old daughter.

Patricia suffered a minor bullet wound, but both children and Jamie were unharmed – Jamie due in part to the fact that he bolted from the theater, leaving Patricia to fend for herself and their two children.

The couple appeared on Piers Morgan Tonight where an emotional Jamie Rohrs described what happened:

article/vid in link:

http://starcasm.net/archives/166784

You know as horrible as this sounds I'm not going to judge the guy simply because we don't know the entire circumstance and more importantly while we all want to think we would do the right thing & jump in front of the bullet like the one hero did, until your staring down the end of a gun nobody knows for sure.

Now if it's reported he knocked them over or used them as a shield then that's one thing but if the guy just got into a "fight or flight" mode & took off I can think it's not right but who am I to judge him.

xBulletproof

07-22-2012, 01:08 PM

No offense, but why the hell do you feel like you need to own an assault rifle? Are you in any of the armed forces? Otherwise there is zero reason to own one.

Sure there is. Home defense. Hunting. Do you believe there are zero reasons to own a pistol or shotgun too?

Too many ignorant people believe they're any more dangerous than any other guns, just because they're big. I can go buy a pistol with nearly the same round capacity and ability to penetrate and cause damage as any assault rifle.

This is the problem, people who don't understand guns like to make judgements that can't be made unless you do.

vapacersfan

07-22-2012, 01:09 PM

You know as horrible as this sounds I'm not going to judge the guy simply because we don't know the entire circumstance and more importantly while we all want to think we would do the right thing & jump in front of the bullet like the one hero did, until your staring down the end of a gun nobody knows for sure.

Now if it's reported he knocked them over or used them as a shield then that's one thing but if the guy just got into a "fight or flight" mode & took off I can think it's not right but who am I to judge him.

FWIW, I believe it was 3 or 4 individuals who covered their girlfriends or fiancees and passed away in doing so.

vapacersfan

07-22-2012, 01:32 PM

From another forum

Here's the thing... I can kind of rationalize the kind of blind panic that would make this guy sprint out of the place leaving behind life and kids. I can imagine being so scared that you lose all sense of reason. I hope I would never fold like that, but it's possible.

However, once out of the theatre... and out of immediate danger... to then get in the car and zoom away leaving loved ones behind? That, I don't get. If he hid in the car waiting for them... cowardly, but okay, to turn the ignition and leave your love and your child behind? That's beyond the first blush of fear... that's a conscious act.

Running for your life could be the animal taking over. Getting in the car, finding your keys, turning the ignition, backing out, and zooming away knowing who you are leaving behind... That's horrible.

vapacersfan

07-22-2012, 01:36 PM

You will never stop these from occurring. Some people are mentally disturbed, with or without drugs. What makes you think another event like this will occur soon? This seems to be an isolated incident of a disturbed individual.

CCW makes no difference here though even thought couple of well placed bullets in to his body armor would have knocked him on his butt. The vast majority of people don't have the proper training to step up in these situations. Most people's flight or fight response would tell them to get the heck out of Dodge with their loved ones at the first sign of danger. Nothing wrong with that either as it's human nature.

I keep hearing it is an "isolated event".

Yet, these "isolate events" happen a hell of a lot more often now then I ever remember growing up.

-Columbine
- Virginia Tech
- Fort Hood

Here is a link, though it seems to be a bit dated:

http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/69327462.html

xBulletproof

07-22-2012, 01:47 PM

Yeah, I don't get the driving away thing. I would be highly ashamed of myself if it was me, you couldn't pay me to do any interviews or even come out in public after that for a while. I would hate myself. I think I am in a position to say that, because I've been there. I can't explain the feeling you get waking up in the hospital with a woman there thanking you for saving her life, I just can't. I mean my immediate concern was that the gun was to MY head, but indirectly I did save her life by acting. I chose to fight, but I made that decision so fast there wasn't even a single thought or debate before. It was just my reaction. So, I can understand the immediate get out of Dodge reaction, but to get in a car and leave your family behind?

I'm curious if she will be understanding or at some point this causes an issue in their relationship.

Merz

07-22-2012, 03:52 PM

Where do you draw the line? My next gun is a pistol, which you seem okay with. Yet, this pistol can penetrate and kill through body armor. Is that allowed then? That's just as dangerous as an AR-15. Then what? .50 cal handguns? Then .44 handguns because they're too powerful?

Once you blur that line, it's bound to keep moving in a direction that ends up but nowhere except with a complete ban.

It doesn't matter what you ban, anyway. The people wanting to break the law don't care and will get it. You're just taking it out of the hands of people who want to defend themselves. It may not seem like an all or nothing to you, but to the people pushing for that eventuality are just waiting for their foot to be in the door, and once it happens, they won't stop.

Wasn't the assault weapons ban lifted back in 2004? They were banned before and it wasn't this slippery slope you claim it to be. Why isn't it a slippery slope the other way? Maybe there are people out there who would like to just "collect" a nuclear weapon or two. We should just go back to the pre-2004 ban, why is that so hard?

Stryder

07-22-2012, 04:59 PM

Because the 10 year ban expired and it wasn't renewed. Any new attempts to resuscitate it haven't even been voted on. in the 10 years they were banned, there was no statistical significance shown. As Bulletproof stated, one can easily do the same damage and MORE with "non-assault" weapons. So, it's really a moot point.

spreedom

07-22-2012, 06:18 PM

Sure there is. Home defense. Hunting. Do you believe there are zero reasons to own a pistol or shotgun too?

Too many ignorant people believe they're any more dangerous than any other guns, just because they're big. I can go buy a pistol with nearly the same round capacity and ability to penetrate and cause damage as any assault rifle.

This is the problem, people who don't understand guns like to make judgements that can't be made unless you do.

I don't know where the line is, but I know that there sure as hell should be one.

BTW I'm going to look into getting a collection of battle axes and a flamethrower. Home defense, ya know?

dal9

07-22-2012, 06:50 PM

I'm curious if she will be understanding or at some point this causes an issue in their relationship.

you think?

Merz

07-22-2012, 06:58 PM

Point is that there is no correlation between playing video games and being violent.

I took your post as you were saying the opposite. I fully agree that there is no correlation between the two.

Merz

07-22-2012, 07:01 PM

Sure there is. Home defense. Hunting. Do you believe there are zero reasons to own a pistol or shotgun too?

Too many ignorant people believe they're any more dangerous than any other guns, just because they're big. I can go buy a pistol with nearly the same round capacity and ability to penetrate and cause damage as any assault rifle.

This is the problem, people who don't understand guns like to make judgements that can't be made unless you do.

Home defense and hunting with an assault weapon...seriously? There is a reason assault is in it's name, right? If you can't protect yourself or hunt with anything but an assault weapon then you probably shouldn't be handling a gun in the first place.

xBulletproof

07-22-2012, 08:06 PM

Home defense and hunting with an assault weapon...seriously? There is a reason assault is in it's name, right? If you can't protect yourself or hunt with anything but an assault weapon then you probably shouldn't be handling a gun in the first place.

To be quite honest, I have no clue what you mean by I shouldn't be handling a gun if I use an AR-15 to hunt. Do you even have any idea about guns, or are you just going off of the name? That's what it sure seems like to me. Plenty of people use the AR-15 platform to hunt with. It's all in the setup.

Also using the AR-15 as a home defense weapon involves the ability to mount a night vision capable sight on it. If someone breaks into my house, I'll be able to see them without the use of a flashlight, and need to give away my position. There's a slight advantage there.

All your message says to me is, "omg it has assault in the name!". Which is pretty silly.

Merz

07-22-2012, 08:45 PM

Please tell me, being the huge ignoramus that I am, why the weapon is named as such. And while you're at it, why it is so troubling to hunt with a gun that is not an assault weapon. Why won't any regular hunting rifle suffice? Not fun enough? Might as well step it up another notch. A grenade launcher would be a blast...try a flame thrower, then at least you can skip having to cook your game. Wow, this slope goes both ways.

Edit: and what I meant by saying "If you can't protect yourself or hunt with anything but an assault weapon then you probably shouldn't be handling a gun in the first place. " is that if you can't protect yourself with a handgun or can't hunt the way your grandpappy hunted, then you're probably not too skillful (or even moderately skilled) with a gun. If you can do it with those guns than why go for the AW? You partially answered it with the night vision capable sight...which I'll accept as an answer...a highly paranoid one, but an answer nonetheless.

Bball

07-22-2012, 09:04 PM

If you believe the 2nd Amendment is there so Americans can hunt or carry (or at least have at home) a pistol for self protection in a robbery then the assault rifle ban arguably makes sense. If you feel the 2nd Amendment is there as a hedge to protect citizens from a government ran amok, or from a foreign invasion/occupation, then an assault rifle ban would arguably be crazy.

xBulletproof

07-22-2012, 09:53 PM

Please tell me, being the huge ignoramus that I am, why the weapon is named as such. And while you're at it, why it is so troubling to hunt with a gun that is not an assault weapon. Why won't any regular hunting rifle suffice? Not fun enough? Might as well step it up another notch. A grenade launcher would be a blast...try a flame thrower, then at least you can skip having to cook your game. Wow, this slope goes both ways.

Edit: and what I meant by saying "If you can't protect yourself or hunt with anything but an assault weapon then you probably shouldn't be handling a gun in the first place. " is that if you can't protect yourself with a handgun or can't hunt the way your grandpappy hunted, then you're probably not too skillful (or even moderately skilled) with a gun. If you can do it with those guns than why go for the AW? You partially answered it with the night vision capable sight...which I'll accept as an answer...a highly paranoid one, but an answer nonetheless.

To start, the term assault rifle is derived from a german name that means "to storm a position", if you must know. I never said it was troubling to not use a hunting rifle, but just that it's a reason to own one, and it is. Using an AR presents problems hunting that "hunting rifles" don't have. So the use of an AR isn't an upgrade or make it in anyway easier than what my 'grandpappy' used. In fact, it's harder. In particular for longer ranges and bigger game hunting. You seem to have a ton of assumptions based on name alone, and not experience.

Also as for your edit, there's nothing paranoid about being prepared. If I set booby traps every night, and put nails under all my windows or did something that altered my life, that's paranoid. The fact that I have thousands of dollars in excess I can use to buy something to ensure the safety of my family and home if necessary is far from paranoia. It's preparedness. I don't have ADT or any alarm system, and wouldn't that qualify as more paranoid than owning the tools made to defend your home? I mean, they're paying someone to monitor their home 24/7. I just want to make sure I'm safe if I happen to be at home. That just seems reasonable to me.

Also, by the way the ban in 1994 to 2004 that you guys are referring to only regulated attachments to AR's not the guns themselves. Bayonet lugs, flash suppressors and collapsible stocks. Assault rifles made before 1994 were still sold, as were ones made to be legal under the new restrictions. The idea that AR's weren't sold during that time is just wrong.

vapacersfan

07-22-2012, 10:15 PM

Random fact: the "AR" is AR-15 does not stand for "assault rifle".

Also, I may be mistaken, but I dont think the AR-15 is a fully automatic weapon (meaning you can hold the trigger down and it will keep firing)

xBulletproof

07-22-2012, 10:20 PM

Random fact: the "AR" is AR-15 does not stand for "assault rifle".

Also, I may be mistaken, but I dont think the AR-15 is a fully automatic weapon (meaning you can hold the trigger down and it will keep firing)

I didn't even think about that, but it does fall under the category of AR's. :laugh:

Also, you're correct about the AR-15 not being fully automatic. It's just like most pistols (glock 18, anyone?). One trigger pull equals 1 bullet. Which I explained earlier, but maybe some missed that. The video I posted was of an attachment that made the gun work that way, not the gun itself. I guess maybe I wasn't clear enough there. And yes, I do believe that attachment should be illegal.

vapacersfan

07-22-2012, 10:21 PM

http://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/stat...10145896214528 (http://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/statuses/227210145896214528)
RT @KCJoynerTFS: A great way to show support - Peyton calls Colorado shooting victims in hospital espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id…

vapacersfan

07-22-2012, 10:24 PM

To be fair, I was arguing semantics, but I just found it interesting. I think the AR actually stands for Armalite, the orginal designers of the weapon.

Merz

07-23-2012, 01:30 AM

To start, the term assault rifle is derived from a german name that means "to storm a position", if you must know. I never said it was troubling to not use a hunting rifle, but just that it's a reason to own one, and it is. Using an AR presents problems hunting that "hunting rifles" don't have. So the use of an AR isn't an upgrade or make it in anyway easier than what my 'grandpappy' used. In fact, it's harder. In particular for longer ranges and bigger game hunting. You seem to have a ton of assumptions based on name alone, and not experience.

Also as for your edit, there's nothing paranoid about being prepared. If I set booby traps every night, and put nails under all my windows or did something that altered my life, that's paranoid. The fact that I have thousands of dollars in excess I can use to buy something to ensure the safety of my family and home if necessary is far from paranoia. It's preparedness. I don't have ADT or any alarm system, and wouldn't that qualify as more paranoid than owning the tools made to defend your home? I mean, they're paying someone to monitor their home 24/7. I just want to make sure I'm safe if I happen to be at home. That just seems reasonable to me.

Also, by the way the ban in 1994 to 2004 that you guys are referring to only regulated attachments to AR's not the guns themselves. Bayonet lugs, flash suppressors and collapsible stocks. Assault rifles made before 1994 were still sold, as were ones made to be legal under the new restrictions. The idea that AR's weren't sold during that time is just wrong.
Fair enough, I suppose I could be called trustful or naive as you could be called paranoid or realistic depending on which circle it is coming from. I don't agree with your position on assault weapons, but I'll fight to the death for your right to feel that way. Good day sir.

Peck

07-23-2012, 02:02 AM

Fair enough, I suppose I could be called trustful or naive as you could be called paranoid or realistic depending on which circle it is coming from. I don't agree with your position on assault weapons, but I'll fight to the death for your right to feel that way. Good day sir.

I thanked your post because it is this exact civility that I was hoping for in this thread.

Kstat

07-23-2012, 05:57 AM

There absolutely be a stricter limit on the number of rounds per minute a weapon available to the public can fire. At least then you're talking about a few casualties and not a dozen.

That said, there was no way this monster was going to be stopped completely. He had no prior record, and gave off no clear signs to my knowledge. Unfortunately, it also means that our gun laws, no matter how strict we make them, are not going to keep every dangerous lunatic from owning one.

I detest the second amendment, but that's a personal issue. I'm not naive enough to think that repealing it would suddenly make everyone safer. I would be happier if we simply started reducing the destructive power of the weapons we authorize the public to own.

I fail to see how a weapon capable of mowing down a small mob has any practical use, be it for sport or defending your property. All weapons of war do is encourage people to think they are warriors, and I'm sorry but the vast majority of gun owners in this country are not mentally or physically equipped to play soldier at the drop of a hat.

Unclebuck

07-23-2012, 08:44 AM

Sorry, I've already judged the guy who left his family behind. How can you not judge him. Might not be criminal what he did and don;t see how it could be, but it is pretty low. Although I'd be willing to listen to his side of things but then I would judge him some more

RobRoy317

07-23-2012, 09:51 AM

No offense, but self defense. You're right, 0 reason, that's why people own them

spreedom

07-23-2012, 10:14 AM

BTW, a 1993 study showed that a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder.

http://www.guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

Just food for thought.

Kstat

07-23-2012, 10:20 AM

BTW, a 1993 study showed that a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder.

http://www.guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

Just food for thought.

Precisely my point.

People think because they shoot tin cans or defenseless animals in the woods that it prepares them for life-threatening situations involving another armed human being.

Unless you're a professional with experience in using lethal force, there is a good chance you are going to be overwhelmed by the situation and wind up doing more harm than good.

Some idiot made a statement the day after the shooting that things might have been better had the rest of the audience been armed. Really? In a theater filled with tear gas? There would have been more people killed by the patrons than the maniac.

Sollozzo

07-23-2012, 12:08 PM

Chicago has some of the most strict gun laws in the entire country yet has had 274 murders this year. It's an out of control cesspool of violence. The situation in Chicago pretty much destroys the pro-gun control argument.

Sollozzo

07-23-2012, 12:18 PM

Some idiot made a statement the day after the shooting that things might have been better had the rest of the audience been armed. Really? In a theater filled with tear gas? There would have been more people killed by the patrons than the maniac.

There would have been more people killed by the patrons than by the maniac who was deliberately picking off people by the dozen with his assault rifle? Really?

All we know is that a maniac loaded with several guns lit up a movie theater filled with defense-less citizens. Had his assault rifle not jammed then we would have likely had many many many more deaths. If I'm in that movie theater, I'd gladly like to see a fellow citizen at least try to take a shot at him. It at least would give you some sort of hope of stopping him. Without a fellow citizen firing at him, your only hope is that one of his guns jams and that's thankfully what happened. Otherwise, we'd be looking at more casualties.

Was this shooter a professional? Absolutely not. Yet he was able to target and pick off people in the aisles. So why couldn't a citizen with target practice experience get a good shot on him?

At Virginia Tech, that guy shot a bunch of poor sitting-duck students in the classroom who were completely powerless to stop him. Nearly everyone in the classrooms he targeted was shot, and 32 of them died. Yet I'm supposed to believe that it would somehow have been worse if one of those students had a gun and took a shot at him? Maybe the student gets a good shot at the shooter or maybe he misses. But hey, there's at least a chance it works. Give me that chance any day over hiding under a desk and praying that the inevitable shot he hits me with isn't fatal.

vapacersfan

07-23-2012, 01:38 PM

To be fair Cho was not wearing any body armor, this guy was wearing all kinds of armor, a BP vest, and some form of a gas mask

Just to show a little of what this guy might have been wearing. A person with one gun vs. the shooter is probably not going to make a difference. You would almost have to have a head/neck shot.

xBulletproof

07-23-2012, 02:17 PM

Chicago has some of the most strict gun laws in the entire country yet has had 274 murders this year. It's an out of control cesspool of violence. The situation in Chicago pretty much destroys the pro-gun control argument.

llinois actually doesn't even allow anyone to legally carry a gun. Which I am not sure how that's legal. You would imagine the 2nd amendment for the whole country would supersede state law. It does not however. Yet my gfs family lives just outside Chicago and I always carry mine anyway.

There's a law they're trying to pass that would make it legal. It basically makes it so any carry permit is good in any state. Even Illinois.

Since86

07-23-2012, 02:27 PM

Anyone know what happened with gun violence in the UK after they banned hand guns? I'll give you a hint, it didn't go down.

Trader Joe

07-23-2012, 03:06 PM

Why are they banning costumes at movie theatres? This guy was dressed like a swat team member, not Batman or Frodo. Unless he was dressed like one of the hundreds of extras in any of the Batman movies, that must be it! God damn costumes!

Yet again, I feel like we are missing the point here as a country, we keep looking at video games, and costumes, and chasing paper lions. It's just pointless.

Full on gun control isn't the answer either.

indygeezer

07-23-2012, 03:08 PM

The unibomber didn't use guns nor was the Federal building in OK City taken down by an AR-15 That was not meant to sound snarky, forgive me if it seems so, I want to show that if someone intends mayhem, he will find a way to create mayhem. With his hair dyed orange and reportedly proclaiming himself to be the Joker, he's nuts enough to have used Molotov Cocktails if he couldn't use/get guns. (anybody care to look at wanton violence in the movies??)

I do question how he is able to obtain body armor. Why would that be available to the general public?

As stated, Illinois and Colorado have some of the most restrictive ownership laws in America....and yet this is what, the 3rd such incident in Colorado??? Why? Why Colorado?

As to the video...I just saw a training film reenactment of a shootout in Florida in which several FBI agents died. THe two perps were shot numerous time but kept on fighting. It was really quite sobering when I relaized how outgunned I'd be with my .45 against someone with an AR-15.

Bball

07-23-2012, 03:53 PM

Let me play devil's advocate here because this question seems to be getting lost-
If we banned guns I doubt anyone believes criminals wouldn't still be able to get them, but what about these random nut cases who don't really have a criminal history in the first place? Would they be able to make the rounds on the black market and get guns and ammo like this? Or would having to deal with criminals and the seedier side of things, a life they really haven't been around in most cases, change their plans entirely?

indygeezer

07-23-2012, 04:06 PM

Let me play devil's advocate here because this question seems to be getting lost-
If we banned guns I doubt anyone believes criminals wouldn't still be able to get them, but what about these random nut cases who don't really have a criminal history in the first place? Would they be able to make the rounds on the black market and get guns and ammo like this? Or would having to deal with criminals and the seedier side of things, a life they really haven't been around in most cases, change their plans entirely?

You'd be suprised the weapons I've been offered for sale by guys trying to put two nickels together in this economy. I don't mean black market stuff either. Good honest workers who have fallen on hard times have offered me everthing from an old .32 revolver to street-sweeper shotguns with 30 shot clips, to just about anything imaginable. ( I used to know a guy that legally mounted an 50 cal. anti-aircraft gun to a concrete slab on his farmland....he fired the dern thing to, at a concrete wall about a quarter of a mile away).

My point is, you don't have to deal with the seedier side of life to get a weapon.

Kstat

07-23-2012, 04:06 PM

There would have been more people killed by the patrons than by the maniac who was deliberately picking off people by the dozen with his assault rifle? Really?

All we know is that a maniac loaded with several guns lit up a movie theater filled with defense-less citizens. Had his assault rifle not jammed then we would have likely had many many many more deaths. If I'm in that movie theater, I'd gladly like to see a fellow citizen at least try to take a shot at him. It at least would give you some sort of hope of stopping him. Without a fellow citizen firing at him, your only hope is that one of his guns jams and that's thankfully what happened. Otherwise, we'd be looking at more casualties.

Was this shooter a professional? Absolutely not. Yet he was able to target and pick off people in the aisles. So why couldn't a citizen with target practice experience get a good shot on him?

At Virginia Tech, that guy shot a bunch of poor sitting-duck students in the classroom who were completely powerless to stop him. Nearly everyone in the classrooms he targeted was shot, and 32 of them died. Yet I'm supposed to believe that it would somehow have been worse if one of those students had a gun and took a shot at him? Maybe the student gets a good shot at the shooter or maybe he misses. But hey, there's at least a chance it works. Give me that chance any day over hiding under a desk and praying that the inevitable shot he hits me with isn't fatal.
...it's always a great idea until someone gets shot by a panicked pedestrian, WHICH IS WHAT NORMALLY HAPPENS.

Let's see: a theater filled with tear gas. Only one guy has a mask. Yeah, I'm pretty sure there would have been more than 12 people dead, considering nobody would have been aware of exactly WHO was the maniac, or how many maniacs were in the crowded theater. Anybody with a gun would have appeared threatening.

Also, maniacs are maniacs for a reason: they lack basic human empathy. They are much closer to soldiers than good law abiding people. They don't have the same mental obstacles about taking another human life.

They have also been mentally prepared to kill innocent people at random.

The victims have no such preparation, and human beings do not deal with that immense sudden change in pressure.

Look at the guy that left a woman and children behind and DROVE HOME. How many people do you think he'd have shot had he had a gun? You really think he'd calmly pause and pick out the shooter? You think he'd even be looking in the direction he was shooting?

Since86

07-23-2012, 04:17 PM

A 71yr old man with a gun made two would be robbers turn and flee because he had his weapon with him inside a bank.
http://www.complex.com/city-guide/2012/07/customer-defends-internet-cafe-from-two-thieves

It's possible more people would have been shot. It's also possible that the shooter could have retreated because he was getting fired at too.

Saying you know one way or the other just isn't all that realistic.

Bball

07-23-2012, 04:18 PM

You'd be suprised the weapons I've been offered for sale by guys trying to put two nickels together in this economy. I don't mean black market stuff either. Good honest workers who have fallen on hard times have offered me everthing from an old .32 revolver to street-sweeper shotguns with 30 shot clips, to just about anything imaginable. ( I used to know a guy that legally mounted an 50 cal. anti-aircraft gun to a concrete slab on his farmland....he fired the dern thing to, at a concrete wall about a quarter of a mile away).

My point is, you don't have to deal with the seedier side of life to get a weapon.

If weapons were banned entirely, confiscated, etc.... And sale of said weapons made a serious crime then I don't think you'd see too many sales under the table like that. People would want to keep their now illegal weapons and also be worried about getting caught selling one or even getting caught owning one (and losing it to confiscation). The buyer and seller would need to know one another IMO. Some college kid who has lost his marbles isn't going to be able to get Farmer John to admit he even has a gun, let alone get him to sell one I don't think.

And each year the amount of weapons available would dry up somewhat as confiscation and laws keep otherwise law abiding citizens in check.

Are you considering all of that?

And BTW I'm still playing devil's advocate here. I'm not advocating any such thing as gun bans, confiscation, or really any changes.

Since86

07-23-2012, 04:33 PM

You can get 10years for selling crack, and there aren't any shortage of crack dealers. If the money is right, people will do anything.

EDIT: And with the internet giving anyone access to the entire world, it really shrinks how far you'd have to go to get what you'd want. You can get anything off the internet. You can have anything you want shipped right to your door, or an address of your chosing. Whether it's steriods, drugs, women, child porn, guns, etc. it's literally at your finger tips.

And if he couldn't have gotten the gun he wanted, he could have simply put a bomb in a backpack and walked off, killing just as many people.

indygeezer

07-23-2012, 04:54 PM

I did consider all of that and then I thought of Fast and Furious and how easily guns can transport across the wide open border. And as Since86 mentioned, there would be a market for the illicit guns, just as there is for drugs. Adding that all together doesn't seem worth the destruction of the Constitution in order to take legal guns out of the hands of legal owners.

indygeezer

07-23-2012, 04:58 PM

In deference... to LEGALLY purchase guns via the internet, the weapon must be shipped to a FFL licensed gun dealer and transfer paperwork completed. Some states, California for one, do not allow shipment into their state at all unless it is from one FFL holder to another. In any case the same purchase restrictions apply as any gun sold locally.

Sollozzo

07-23-2012, 05:21 PM

...it's always a great idea until someone gets shot by a panicked pedestrian, WHICH IS WHAT NORMALLY HAPPENS.

Let's see: a theater filled with tear gas. Only one guy has a mask. Yeah, I'm pretty sure there would have been more than 12 people dead, considering nobody would have been aware of exactly WHO was the maniac, or how many maniacs were in the crowded theater. Anybody with a gun would have appeared threatening.

Also, maniacs are maniacs for a reason: they lack basic human empathy. They are much closer to soldiers than good law abiding people. They don't have the same mental obstacles about taking another human life.

They have also been mentally prepared to kill innocent people at random.

The victims have no such preparation, and human beings do not deal with that immense sudden change in pressure.

Look at the guy that left a woman and children behind and DROVE HOME. How many people do you think he'd have shot had he had a gun? You really think he'd calmly pause and pick out the shooter? You think he'd even be looking in the direction he was shooting?

We don't know what would have happened if someone had a gun. What we do know is that this guy was able to fire at dozens of people with his assault rifle and likely would have killed scores more had his gun not jammed. So we know for a fact what the scenario is where no citizens are armed, and it's a very very bad one. Had someone been armed, then there is at least a *chance* that they could have stopped him. I'll still take my chances with a panicked bystander who has experience firing a gun and is trying to stop the perpetrator over being in a theater like that where everyone is powerless to a gunman who is trying to kill everyone with a spray of assault rifle fire. 12 deceased people with multiple injuries is horrible, but had his gun not jammed then we would likely have seen fatalities on an unimaginable scale. I would have taken my chance on someone trying to play hero to stop a maniac with a weapon that was capable of killing nearly everyone in the room. It couldn't be any worse.

Also, he has to be the first mass shooter in US history to dress in body armor and spray tear gas. The Va. Tech shooter didn't have any of that when he shot nearly every single person in the classrooms he targeted, killing 32 of them. Again, we know what happened when none of the victims were armed, which is that virtually everyone was shot and many were dead. Your best hope that day was to play dead and hope that the shots he fired into you were not fatal. So we know for a fact that everyone being unarmed that day resulted in a situation where nearly everyone was shot and powerless to do anything. What if some student was able to surprise him and catch him off guard by firing a shot at him? Maybe it would have worked, maybe it wouldn't. But it could not have been any worse than it already was, and there is a decent chance that it could have actually worked. Students heard gunfire in neighboring classrooms and knew it was coming, so if one of them was armed he could have had his gun ready to fire the moment the shooter came into his classroom and completely caught him off guard. I'll put my eggs in that basket as opposed to being in a situation that is an inevitable loser, which is being forced to hide under a desk like a sitting duck.

Kstat

07-23-2012, 05:24 PM

Theoretically, a toddler holding a hand grenade had a chance to scare the shooter away too. Perhaps we should give them weapons?

Just wondering at what point does the risk outweigh the desired result....

There are plenty of stories about people in their own houses killing their spouses during a break-in. I'd wager a lot more than dead intruders.

Would I instinctively want a weapon in that situation? he'll yes! That's human survival instinct, and that very rarely results un good decision-making.

Theoretically, had all adults involved been carrying a gun un that theatre, the casualties would have been doubled in the absolute best case scenario, and a lot of survivors would have had to live with killing other innocent people by mistake. There is also a very good chance the gunplay would have continued long after the original gunman was shot.

Peck

07-23-2012, 05:34 PM

Theoretically, a toddler holding a hand grenade had a chance to scare the shooter away too. Perhaps we should give them weapons?

Just wondering at one point the risk outweighs the desired result....

There are plenty of stories about people in their own houses killing their spouses during a break-in. I'd wager a lot more than dead intruders.

There really is no way to prove or disprove this though as records aren't kept about how many times an intruder has fled a house/property because the occupent produced a gun.

Edit: Never mind you said dead intruder, my bad. That I'm sure can be evaluated.

Sollozzo

07-23-2012, 05:40 PM

Theoretically, a toddler holding a hand grenade had a chance to scare the shooter away too. Perhaps we should give them weapons?

Just wondering at what point does the risk outweigh the desired result....

There are plenty of stories about people in their own houses killing their spouses during a break-in. I'd wager a lot more than dead intruders.

There are plenty of stories about people dying in car wrecks (roughly 40,000 Americans a year). At what point does the risk of driving a car outweigh the desired result?

There's certainly no doubt that people have accidentally shot someone, but I would like to see some stats that backup your assertion that spouses get accidentally shot more than intruders.

Believe it or not, I've never fired or even touched a gun and I'm in my mid 20's. But if I was at Va. Tech that day then you better believe I would have been relieved to find out that a fellow student had a gun and was going to attempt to take a shot at the guy. Hey, at least that has a *chance* of working. Sitting under your desk like a sitting duck certainly didn't work, as is evidenced by the fact that nearly everyone was shot. Why is it unreasonable to assume that there is a decent chance that an armed person could have actually gotten a shot off at the Va. Tech shooter that day and not hit anyone else in the process? I'm not saying that there's a 100% chance it would have worked, but it certainly would have had a chance at preventing more death. It couldn't have been any worse given that virtually everyone was shot.

spreedom

07-23-2012, 05:48 PM

There's certainly no doubt that people have accidentally shot someone, but I would like to see some stats that backup your assertion that spouses get accidentally shot more than intruders.

ICYMI...

BTW, a 1993 study showed that a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder.

http://www.guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

Just food for thought.

Sollozzo

07-23-2012, 05:52 PM

ICYMI...

Yes, but aren't most of those intentional? I was challenging Kstat's assertion that spouses are accidentally shot more often than intruders.

spreedom

07-23-2012, 06:11 PM

What I would like to see is a comparison of reported attempted robberies that were thwarted by a private citizen with a gun and the number of murders with legally-purchased guns in the past 5 years. I think there would be a very low ratio.

I honestly can't think of five reports off of the top of my head where an ordinary armed person prevented violence or an armed robbery. But I do know that there are 100,000 deaths in the US per year due to gun-related violence. I don't think making guns illegal or simply putting tighter regulations on what kind or how many can be owned by a single person or household, but it is my belief that making them illegal would solve more problems than it would create. JMHO.

Peck

07-23-2012, 06:21 PM

What I would like to see is a comparison of reported attempted robberies that were thwarted by a private citizen with a gun and the number of murders with legally-purchased guns in the past 5 years. I think there would be a very low ratio.

I honestly can't think of five reports off of the top of my head where an ordinary armed person prevented violence or an armed robbery. But I do know that there are 100,000 deaths in the US per year due to gun-related violence. I don't think making guns illegal or simply putting tighter regulations on what kind or how many can be owned by a single person or household, but it is my belief that making them illegal would solve more problems than it would create. JMHO.

Well as I said to Kstat this would be impossible to tell as there is no on going database to determine how many times a person fled the scene due to the occupant having a firearm.

Bball

07-23-2012, 06:32 PM

You can get 10years for selling crack, and there aren't any shortage of crack dealers. If the money is right, people will do anything.

You missed my point.

I'm agreeing the criminal element will always be there selling guns. But in the scenario I painted I was speaking about Geezer's talking of inner circle people selling guns to each other... or a friend of a friend type thing anyway. People who are not generally criminals and who wouldn't sell to just anyone.

Would there be places a 'loner nut', never before in trouble with the law, would turn to buy weapons if you couldn't purchase them legally?

My own thoughts are that a person like this wouldn't have the first idea how to find a gun if they were outlawed to that degree, nor would he want to go to some seedy places asking around about purchasing an illegal weapon... or multiples thereof. He'd be more worried about getting mugged or getting ripped off in any deal he'd make (take his money and leave him with nothing or sell him junk).

EDIT: And with the internet giving anyone access to the entire world, it really shrinks how far you'd have to go to get what you'd want. You can get anything off the internet. You can have anything you want shipped right to your door, or an address of your chosing. Whether it's steriods, drugs, women, child porn, guns, etc. it's literally at your finger tips.

Except Dovonex... I'd really like to find a source for Dovonex besides the 300.00+ stuff at the pharmacy. I'm looking... ;)

And if he couldn't have gotten the gun he wanted, he could have simply put a bomb in a backpack and walked off, killing just as many people.

That's where I was headed... I think we could make it so these lone nut, otherwise law abiding, 'never seen it coming' types couldn't or wouldn't be able to get guns... But I think they'd just find another way to do what they want to do...

Your run of the mill criminals who'd be fine with the network they'd need to be in to find guns in a world where they are banned aren't going to be shooting up movie theaters just to randomly kill people.

Bball

07-23-2012, 06:34 PM

Theoretically, had all adults involved been carrying a gun un that theatre, the casualties would have been doubled in the absolute best case scenario, and a lot of survivors would have had to live with killing other innocent people by mistake. There is also a very good chance the gunplay would have continued long after the original gunman was shot.

And had the killer known everyone in that theater was carrying a gun, or even that there was a very real possibility of it, he probably doesn't even do this in the first place. IMHO.

spreedom

07-23-2012, 06:49 PM

Well as I said to Kstat this would be impossible to tell as there is no on going database to determine how many times a person fled the scene due to the occupant having a firearm.

But you would certainly think that in at least 85-90% of the cases, those whose homes were invaded called the police and filed a report. So it wouldn't be impossible to track.

Well as I said to Kstat this would be impossible to tell as there is no on going database to determine how many times a person fled the scene due to the occupant having a firearm.

You can own a handgun in Colorado and can also apply for a license to conceal and carry. So for all the shooter knew, there were armed people in the theater. And by all accounts, he surrendered peacefully and was completely done shooting by the time the police found him... so why else would he wear the ridiculous amount of body armor? If he truly planned to go out in a blaze of glory and exchange gunfire with the police, wouldn't he have done it? That's mostly speculation but I think it is a worthwhile point.

Personally, I think a dark, loud movie theater full of gas and with shots being fired would have gotten even worse if there were 5-10 armed people returning fire. But that's just my opinion.

Bball

07-23-2012, 07:05 PM

BTW... Reports that the mother had suspicions her son could do this or was not surprised seem to be in question:

"This statement is to clarify a statement made by ABC media. I was awakened by a call from a reporter by ABC on July 20 about 5:45 in the morning. I did not know anything about a shooting in Aurora at that time," Holmes said in a statement this afternoon, read to the national press by attorney Lisa Damiani. "He asked if I was Arlene Holmes and if my son was James Holmes who lives in Aurora, Colorado. I answered yes, you have the right person. I was referring to myself."

(See also: Full coverage Colorado theater shooting)

"I asked him to tell me why he was calling and he told me about a shooting in Aurora," she continues. "He asked for a comment. I told him I could not comment because I did not know if the person he was talking about was my son, and I would need to find out."

In the first paragraph of its initial report on Friday, ABC News reported that it had identified the correct James Holmes because his mother "told ABC News her son was likely the alleged culprit, saying, 'You have the right person.'"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/07/holmes-mother-suggests-abc-news-mischaracterized-her-129835.html

But ABC stands by their report:

ABC News phoned Arlene Holmes at 5am PST, at her home in San Diego, Calif., according to notes and email records by ABC News producer Matthew Mosk, who placed the call. ....
Mosk said today that he awoke Arlene Holmes and informed her that a man, he believed was her son had been arrested in Aurora and asked to confirm their relationship.

"You have to tell me what happened… You have to tell me what happened," the woman on the phone said, according to Mosk. Mosk said he told her that ABC News had learned the 24-year-old had been identified by police as the lone suspect in the mass killing in Aurora, Colo and that the details of the events were still taking shape.

"You have the right person," was her response, he said. "I need to call the police. I need to fly to Colorado."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/alleged-colorado-gunman-james-holmes-family-stand-son/story?id=16840162#.UA3VpUxnUW0

Reading what Mosk (of ABC) is saying it pretty much sounds like it confirmes what the mother now says. So, someone took the wrong thing away from the initial quote. I'm curious to see how ABC initially reported this....

xBulletproof

07-23-2012, 07:12 PM

It was really quite sobering when I relaized how outgunned I'd be with my .45 against someone with an AR-15.

Get an FN-57. It's a rifle cartridge fired from a pistol, and each clip carries 20 rounds. Supposedly clears through soft body armor as well. It'll bridge that gap quite a bit. Yet it's a pistol and can easily be concealed. It's also a very low recoil round and accurate at long ranges even. I've fired it quite a bit. It's more scary to me than an AR. It's made almost completely of polymer and is quite light at 20 ounces.

The rounds this pistol fires was originally created for a PDW called P90. Which is also quite fun to shoot.

Just to show a little of what this guy might have been wearing. A person with one gun vs. the shooter is probably not going to make a difference. You would almost have to have a head/neck shot.

It all depends on the type of body armor each were wearing. North Hollywood guy might have been wearing the Michael Jordan of body armor that doesn't only stop bullets, but prevents blunt trauma to the body from the impact as well. Guy in Colorado might have had the Troy Murphy of bulletproof vests. We just don't know. Body armor isn't perfect. Multiple shots in close vicinity will still penetrate. For most types of body armor, you're still going to feel it and it can hurt quite bad.

I guess my point is that I would assume that repeat offenders in bank robberies who were willing to fight to the death had more serious body armor than a kid who ordered his offline and was willing to turn himself in without a shot being fired at him. The price difference is quite large as well.

indygeezer

07-24-2012, 09:45 AM

I was reading this AM that the body armor is available online in various degrees of stopping power. The article also said that many of our deployed and soon to be deployed military order their own armor and tactical gear rather than waiting for military approval for replacement of worn or damaged equipment. Now that is just SAD.

Oh, it also said he was wearing neck and throat protection too.................groin shot?

xBulletproof.......I sent you a PM.

graphic-er

07-24-2012, 09:56 AM

llinois actually doesn't even allow anyone to legally carry a gun. Which I am not sure how that's legal. You would imagine the 2nd amendment for the whole country would supersede state law. It does not however. Yet my gfs family lives just outside Chicago and I always carry mine anyway.

There's a law they're trying to pass that would make it legal. It basically makes it so any carry permit is good in any state. Even Illinois.

In Illinois, you can have a gun in your home, but you can't carry it anywhere with you. So its strictly a home protection state. But obviously Criminals will carry their guns anywhere they want to. Laws like these is why I don't like to travel to or refuse to live in Illinois. They expect you to be a victim in wait. They even have crazy wire tapping laws that say you can't record Police officers in public, automatic felony. They honestly expect you not to defend yourself against violent street crime. Same thing with Washington DC.

Here in Indiana its illegal to resist illegal entry by police officers into your home. So what is to stop the crooks from just impersonating police offers? Easy to buy a police uniform. Most people would not know the difference.

indygeezer

07-24-2012, 10:00 AM

RANT WARNING

Everyone wants to point fingers at those who possess guns. Well we can also talk about how society has taken to violence in the movies and in video games with no repercussions as to the desensitization of our kids. HOWEVER, I have my personal rant regarding the lack of respect towards weapons kids are taught/not taught today. In particular....Paintball. I have had a personal vendetta against this 'sport" ever since Columbine because we, as parents, are putting a loaded weapon in the kids hands, telling them to aim it at another human being, and to pull the freaking trigger!!! We have made a game out of actually shooting people, albeit with paintballs, but still...................it makes aiming and pulling the trigger an adrenaline filled experience.
When I was a kid, playing cowboys and indians or soldiers was common place but we did so with sticks or cap guns. But if we were caught actually aiming them at another person we were severly reprimanded. We were taught to never ever point a gun of any type at anyone, even a stick. It drilled the idea into our conciousness. We were taught respect for the guns. Now....go ahead, pull the trigger, we'll just blame the gun makers when you get in trouble.

graphic-er

07-24-2012, 10:35 AM

BTW, a 1993 study showed that a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder.

http://www.guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

Just food for thought.

This statistic is too skewed to convince anyone who is paying attention. Of course your family members are more likely to be shot by a fire arm kept in the home. They are around that fire arm an infinite amount of time more than the one time a home intruder is around it. Just a simple argument. I could say the same thing about being impaled by lawn darts.

They key is education and training about firearms. We need to learn an important fact about life. You can't protect everyone, but you can protect yourself.

graphic-er

07-24-2012, 10:42 AM

I do question how he is able to obtain body armor. Why would that be available to the general public?

Whats wrong with folks owning body armor. There are crazy people with guns. As far as i now its not illegal to walk around wearing body armor.

indygeezer

07-24-2012, 10:48 AM

Perfectly legal to do so....but to do so would seem to be boardering on paranoria.

graphic-er

07-24-2012, 11:07 AM

RANT WARNING

Everyone wants to point fingers at those who possess guns. Well we can also talk about how society has taken to violence in the movies and in video games with no repercussions as to the desensitization of our kids. HOWEVER, I have my personal rant regarding the lack of respect towards weapons kids are taught/not taught today. In particular....Paintball. I have had a personal vendetta against this 'sport" ever since Columbine because we, as parents, are putting a loaded weapon in the kids hands, telling them to aim it at another human being, and to pull the freaking trigger!!! We have made a game out of actually shooting people, albeit with paintballs, but still...................it makes aiming and pulling the trigger an adrenaline filled experience.
When I was a kid, playing cowboys and indians or soldiers was common place but we did so with sticks or cap guns. But if we were caught actually aiming them at another person we were severly reprimanded. We were taught to never ever point a gun of any type at anyone, even a stick. It drilled the idea into our conciousness. We were taught respect for the guns. Now....go ahead, pull the trigger, we'll just blame the gun makers when you get in trouble.

I'll play the otherside because Paintball is ridiculously fun.
I first went Paint-balling in my 20's and I thought they actually taught more about gun safety in the beginning orientation than most people will ever learn in their lives if they didn't take a class on it.

That said I probably wouldn't take a kid to it. I'd wait until they were 16-17 years old.

Trader Joe

07-24-2012, 01:45 PM

Here's my question, hasn't the percentage of gun owners probably gone down drastically since I dunno, 200 years ago? I mean there was a time in this country where everyone owned a gun and it didn't seem to be a big deal. Doesn't that suggest the issue isn't with the actual ownership of guns, but with something else? At the same time, we as a race have been killing each other for years for no reason and in messed up ways, it's just a trait of our species I think you could say at this point might never be a way to stop it.

Since86

07-24-2012, 01:56 PM

Canada has by far more guns per capita than we do, and not anywhere near the crime rate with guns that we do.

Blaming guns for people using them stupidly, is like blaming forks for people over-eating.

Kstat

07-24-2012, 04:49 PM

..and nowhere am I reading anyone seriously suggesting a full gun ban. Just canned responses to an argument that was never made.

Yes, long ago there were more gun owners in this country and less gun related murder. The gun owners also owned guns that weren't capable of mass murder in a matter of seconds.

I'd argue that we need to decrease the firepower available to the public. I don't want to hear how easy it is to acquire automatic weapons illegally. You have to start somewhere.

indygeezer

07-24-2012, 04:53 PM

Talk this AM said that the theater exists in a "Gun Free" zone and so noone in the audience was allowed to be carrying a gun (legally anyway).

Kstat

07-24-2012, 04:58 PM

So hire more security, or at least put metal detectors in. We do that in schools for ****s sake, why not theaters?

Kstat

07-24-2012, 05:26 PM

More gun carrying people in public areas is never, ever a good idea, especially in dark, crowded places. Unless you expect a crazed gunman to yell out "I'm the crazy person here, everyone target me," the second the second and third person pull their weapons, nobody has any idea who the indiscriminate killer is, and you have a situation where people trying to end the violence start shooting at each other.

We have trained professionals to protect lives in public areas and fight wars. If the argument is we need more of them or to train them better, I can get on board with that. I can also get behind owning a handgun for home security, though I think the risks of disaster are just as great. I can't get behind untrained pedestrians carrying guns in public places. Never have, never will.

Trader Joe

07-24-2012, 05:28 PM

I agree, I don't like the idea of a room full of gun toting civilians anymore than one lunatic. I do always wonder why we don't require a more stringent educational class to own a gun.

presto123

07-24-2012, 05:44 PM

So hire more security, or at least put metal detectors in. We do that in schools for ****s sake, why not theaters?

Still think it would do very little. If someone has their mind made up to kill people they will do it at wherever large groups of people gather.

Kstat

07-24-2012, 05:51 PM

Still think it would do very little. If someone has their mind made up to kill people they will do it at wherever large groups of people gather.

Then force them go go that route and get back to me. I dont want to hear that we shouldn't even try.

Force them to buy weapons of mass murder through illegal means. Force them to start opening fire at the metal detectors instead of inside of a dark crowded room with everyone sitting like ducks.

Even if it doesn't stop every murder, it will stop a large percentage of them.

Maybe with open air a good ten feet to their backs, we would have lost a few people in that tragedy, instead of a dozen. Maybe a securuity guard prevents casualties altogether.

Sandman21

07-24-2012, 06:01 PM

I do always wonder why we don't require a more stringent educational class to own a gun.
One of my electives in high school involved a gun safety class I had to pass.....

Maybe with open air a good ten feet to their backs, we would have lost a few people in that tragedy, instead of a dozen. Maybe a securuity guard prevents casualties altogether.
Except the wacko in this case probably wouldn't have had to go through a metal detector with his firearms, seeing as he went out and back in via an emergency exit. Don't think a metal detector would have helped there (and even if it had, that is probably a fire marshall's worst nightmare. There has to be some fire code violations there).

dal9

07-24-2012, 06:04 PM

This statistic is too skewed to convince anyone who is paying attention. Of course your family members are more likely to be shot by a fire arm kept in the home. They are around that fire arm an infinite amount of time more than the one time a home intruder is around it. Just a simple argument. I could say the same thing about being impaled by lawn darts.

lol are you seriously trying to per-36 this stat?

xBulletproof

07-24-2012, 06:18 PM

lol are you seriously trying to per-36 this stat?

It's not so much per-36'ing it (funny way of putting it btw), but it's just a law of averages. It's like that stat I remember from when I was taking my driving test. They said something like 80% of car accidents happen within 10 miles of your home (or something similar, not exact). I laughed out loud, really. I mean, how often do you drive further than 10 miles away from your home? Even if you drive 15 miles from your home, and I may be simplifying it a bit, but you're driving 10 miles further than 10 miles from your home, and 20 total miles within 10 miles of your home accounting for both to and from the destination. Most people do most of their driving within 10 miles of their house, so it's pretty obvious the stat will be skewed this way.

He's really stating a similar issue, only with the guns, even if I don't 100% agree with it.

Me personally, I just chalk it up to natural selection. We need more of that. :laugh:

dal9

07-24-2012, 06:30 PM

He's really stating a similar issue, only with the guns, even if I don't 100% agree with it.

Me personally, I just chalk it up to natural selection. We need more of that. :laugh:

but its usually the kids who find the guns laying around who get "selected out," as you put it, through no fault of their own...

if the gun owners were only shooting themselves then (I guess?) that would be less bad, but its the kids or the wife or the girlfriend that seem to get it more often...

or this one, from the other day:
http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/592387/off-duty-officer-mistakenly-shoots-son-to-death/

yes, i get that "gun safety and training" go a long way, but you think ^ guy didn't have training?

xBulletproof

07-24-2012, 06:42 PM

You can quote plenty of accidents. I can quote plenty of the opposite. Like this ....

but its usually the kids who find the guns laying around who get "selected out," as you put it, through no fault of their own...

terrible parenting is a form of natural selection as well. It protects the gene pool.

Kstat

07-24-2012, 07:22 PM

Who is this supposed to be? Seriously....

So train better ones. In any case, they are better prepared than you are.

Kstat

07-24-2012, 07:23 PM

terrible parenting is a form of natural selection as well. It protects the gene pool.

Yeah, let's give kids no chance to survive. It's their own fault their parents are idiots!

This isn't even funny as a joke.

spreedom

07-24-2012, 07:59 PM

terrible parenting is a form of natural selection as well. It protects the gene pool.

Personal comments redacted, but I do maintain that this is both tasteless and perhaps more importantly, not funny.

billbradley

07-24-2012, 08:08 PM

BATMAN’S GUN: Why the Comic-Book Hero was Disarmed in 1939

To a midnight showing of the new Batman film at a movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado, James E. Holmes carried a .223-calibre Smith & Wesson AR-15 assault-style rifle, a Remington twelve-gauge shotgun, and a .40-caliber Glock handgun; a second Glock was found in his car. He had a magazine for the AR-15 that would have allowed him to shoot a hundred bullets before reloading. He had bought more than six thousand rounds of ammunition online. He dressed in black, with a tactical vest and helmet, and wore a gas mask. He had dyed his hair red. He is thought to have shot seventy people; twelve have died. As a neuroscience graduate student at the University of Colorado, Holmes had been studying the genesis of madness. He reportedly told police that he was the Joker.

No one expects this massacre to lead to a reform of the nation’s gun laws. “No guns,” Batman says to Catwoman, in “The Dark Knight Rises.” That’s more than will likely be said on the floor of Congress.

As I wrote in the magazine in April, there are nearly three hundred million privately owned firearms in the United States: a hundred and five million rifles, eighty-three million shotguns, and a hundred and six million handguns. In no other country in the world is there a rate of civilian gun ownership approaching that in the U.S.: a gun for every American. Nevertheless, aside from Mayor Michael Bloomberg, of New York, almost no one holding or running for public office today is willing to talk about guns, except to argue for Americans’ constitutional right to own them.

It hasn’t always been this way. Americans used to hold a different set of beliefs about guns. So did Batman, who started out with a gun—until he got rid of it. The nineteen-thirties, the golden age of comic-book superheroes, was a time of landmark gun legislation. In 1934, the National Rifle Association supported the National Firearms Act—the first federal gun-control legislation—and, four years later, the 1938 Federal Firearms Act. A great many gun-safety measures on the books today date to those two pieces of legislation, which together mandated licensing for handgun dealers, introduced waiting periods for handgun buyers, required permits for anyone wishing to carry a concealed weapon, and effectively prohibited the sale of the only gun banned in the United States today: the automatic weapon (or “machine gun”).
In 1939, the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Miller. A ruling issued on May 15, 1939, upheld the law, unanimously, and uncontroversially.

The same month the court issued its ruling in Miller, Batman, written by a cartoonist named Bob Kane, began appearing in Detective Comics (later known as DC Comics). Superheroes were new, but they were already controversial; by the spring of 1940, critics were calling comic books a “national menace.”

In the eighteenth century, critics thought reading novels would corrupt girls’ morals. In the nineteenth century, mystery fiction was suspected of causing crime. In the twentieth century, the pulp-fiction panic had to do with comic books and juvenile delinquency. Walter Ong would argue that Mickey Mouse was evidence of creeping secularism and Superman of rampant fascism. In the nineteen-fifties, there would be hearings in Congress after Fredric Wertham, a New York psychiatrist, published a polemic blaming comics for everything from truancy to murder. (Batman was singled out for homosexuality. Wertham wrote of one of his violent thirteen-year-old patients, “Like many other homoerotically inclined children, he was a special devotee of Batman.”) But in the nineteen-thirties, the problem with Batman was Batman’s gun.
In a story published in October of 1939, Batman used a handgun to shoot a vampire—silver bullets to the heart. He used a gun again in the next episode, to fire some shots at two evil henchmen.

At the time, Detective Comics had just hired a new editorial director, a guy from Brooklyn named Whitney Ellsworth. (Not long after hiring Ellsworth, Detective Comics established an editorial advisory board, consisting of people like psychologists and English professors.) When Kane submitted his next story, Batman was shooting again. “Ellsworth said to take the gun out,” Kane remembered.

Maybe it was a simple demurral to the critics, but the disarming of the Dark Knight reads like a concern about the commonweal, a deferral to an accepted and important idea about the division between civilian and military life. Superheroes weren’t soldiers or policemen. They were private citizens. They shouldn’t carry concealed weapons. Villains carried guns. The Joker, introduced in the spring of 1940, carried a gun, and sometimes two. (Batman thwarts him with a bulletproof vest; once Joker realizes this, he aims for his head.) After Ellsworth told Kane to lay off the guns, Kane wrote a two-page piece—issued in November, 1939—explaining Batman’s origins: “Legend: The Bat Man and How He Came to Be.” When Bruce Wayne was a boy, his parents had been killed before his eyes, shot to death.

To a midnight showing of the new Batman film at a movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado, James E. Holmes carried a .223-calibre Smith & Wesson AR-15 assault-style rifle, a Remington twelve-gauge shotgun, and a .40-caliber Glock handgun; a second Glock was found in his car. He had a magazine for the AR-15 that would have allowed him to shoot a hundred bullets before reloading. He had bought more than six thousand rounds of ammunition online. He dressed in black, with a tactical vest and helmet, and wore a gas mask. He had dyed his hair red. He is thought to have shot seventy people; twelve have died. As a neuroscience graduate student at the University of Colorado, Holmes had been studying the genesis of madness. He reportedly told police that he was the Joker.

No one expects this massacre to lead to a reform of the nation’s gun laws. “No guns,” Batman says to Catwoman, in “The Dark Knight Rises.” That’s more than will likely be said on the floor of Congress.

As I wrote in the magazine in April, there are nearly three hundred million privately owned firearms in the United States: a hundred and five million rifles, eighty-three million shotguns, and a hundred and six million handguns. In no other country in the world is there a rate of civilian gun ownership approaching that in the U.S.: a gun for every American. Nevertheless, aside from Mayor Michael Bloomberg, of New York, almost no one holding or running for public office today is willing to talk about guns, except to argue for Americans’ constitutional right to own them.

It hasn’t always been this way. Americans used to hold a different set of beliefs about guns. So did Batman, who started out with a gun—until he got rid of it. The nineteen-thirties, the golden age of comic-book superheroes, was a time of landmark gun legislation. In 1934, the National Rifle Association supported the National Firearms Act—the first federal gun-control legislation—and, four years later, the 1938 Federal Firearms Act. A great many gun-safety measures on the books today date to those two pieces of legislation, which together mandated licensing for handgun dealers, introduced waiting periods for handgun buyers, required permits for anyone wishing to carry a concealed weapon, and effectively prohibited the sale of the only gun banned in the United States today: the automatic weapon (or “machine gun”).

In 1939, the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Miller. A ruling issued on May 15, 1939, upheld the law, unanimously, and uncontroversially.

The same month the court issued its ruling in Miller, Batman, written by a cartoonist named Bob Kane, began appearing in Detective Comics (later known as DC Comics). Superheroes were new, but they were already controversial; by the spring of 1940, critics were calling comic books a “national menace.”

In the eighteenth century, critics thought reading novels would corrupt girls’ morals. In the nineteenth century, mystery fiction was suspected of causing crime. In the twentieth century, the pulp-fiction panic had to do with comic books and juvenile delinquency. Walter Ong would argue that Mickey Mouse was evidence of creeping secularism and Superman of rampant fascism. In the nineteen-fifties, there would be hearings in Congress after Fredric Wertham, a New York psychiatrist, published a polemic blaming comics for everything from truancy to murder. (Batman was singled out for homosexuality. Wertham wrote of one of his violent thirteen-year-old patients, “Like many other homoerotically inclined children, he was a special devotee of Batman.”) But in the nineteen-thirties, the problem with Batman was Batman’s gun.

In a story published in October of 1939, Batman used a handgun to shoot a vampire—silver bullets to the heart. He used a gun again in the next episode, to fire some shots at two evil henchmen.

At the time, Detective Comics had just hired a new editorial director, a guy from Brooklyn named Whitney Ellsworth. (Not long after hiring Ellsworth, Detective Comics established an editorial advisory board, consisting of people like psychologists and English professors.) When Kane submitted his next story, Batman was shooting again. “Ellsworth said to take the gun out,” Kane remembered.

Maybe it was a simple demurral to the critics, but the disarming of the Dark Knight reads like a concern about the commonweal, a deferral to an accepted and important idea about the division between civilian and military life. Superheroes weren’t soldiers or policemen. They were private citizens. They shouldn’t carry concealed weapons. Villains carried guns. The Joker, introduced in the spring of 1940, carried a gun, and sometimes two. (Batman thwarts him with a bulletproof vest; once Joker realizes this, he aims for his head.) After Ellsworth told Kane to lay off the guns, Kane wrote a two-page piece—issued in November, 1939—explaining Batman’s origins: “Legend: The Bat Man and How He Came to Be.” When Bruce Wayne was a boy, his parents had been killed before his eyes, shot to death.

Batman, then, came out of a time when the private ownership of firearms was considered a proper matter for government regulation. Today’s gun debate, or lack of it, has its origins in the nineteen-sixties. You might think that the last thing to undermine the conviction that gun-safety legislation is sane or, at a minimum, worthy of vigorous debate, would have been the horrors of the nineteen-sixties: the political assassinations, the rate of violent crime, the terror of war.

Not so. Instead, beginning in the nineteen-sixties, the conservative movement rose to power, in part, by asserting an individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. A half-century later, the nature, stakes, and menace of this argument have made public debate about the regulation of gun ownership all but impossible. After the shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech, schools across the country installed metal detectors and hired private-security firms and instituted lockdown drills. After the shooting in Aurora, it is more likely that there will be metal detectors at movie theatres than that there will be a vote on an assault-weapons ban in the House. There will be much talk of the Second Amendment and almost none of the First.

Meanwhile, there is very little that can be said, except to mourn the dead. The darkest nights are silent.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/07/gun-laws-and-batman.html#ixzz21aY2DdjQ

Peck

07-24-2012, 10:18 PM

Please let us not descend into name calling, this thread has been a breath of fresh air of civility up to this point. I would hate for it to be ruined by cheap insults.

Also from the other point of view, some jokes while funny to some are not appropriate.

graphic-er

07-24-2012, 11:57 PM

Yeah, let's give kids no chance to survive. It's their own fault their parents are idiots!

This isn't even funny as a joke.

I wasn't joking nor intended it to be funny. Terrible Parenting directly effects a child's ability to survive up to a certain age. If you don't keep a trigger lock on your firearm, then you shouldn't be surprised to find junior has blown his face off playing with your gun. And if that's the case you probably weren't fit to be a parent to begin with and the odds are against you raising a good upstanding citizen.

Sad but true, natural selection is a process of weeding out the gene pool of the least of its species part of that includes the ending of blood lines. Everyone gets offended when you personify that idea.

Peck

07-25-2012, 12:44 AM

I wasn't joking nor intended it to be funny. Terrible Parenting directly effects a child's ability to survive up to a certain age. If you don't keep a trigger lock on your firearm, then you shouldn't be surprised to find junior has blown his face off playing with your gun. And if that's the case you probably weren't fit to be a parent to begin with and the odds are against you raising a good upstanding citizen.

Sad but true, natural selection is a process of weeding out the gene pool of the least of its species part of that includes the ending of blood lines. Everyone gets offended when you personify that idea.

Accidents happen, even to the best of parents.

Now having said that I see no reason this line of discussion needs to continue in this thread. If you wish to talk about this open another thread and we'll see where it goes.

Sollozzo

07-25-2012, 01:20 AM

So hire more security, or at least put metal detectors in. We do that in schools for ****s sake, why not theaters?

A school is a place that the government forces children to attend up to a certain age. Most people go to public schools, and given that public schools are a publicly run entity, the people who run them can require metal detectors or whatever other policy they chose. That's fine. A school is a place you are forced to attend and by definition has rules and structure, so there is no problem with a place that bans a bunch of legal stuff from its premises requiring someone to be subjected to a search. You can't chew gum in school, so I don't think many people are going to complain about some metal detectors.

A privately run place like a theater OTOH is a completely different animal. It is a private business whose attendees are acting on free will. Where do you draw the line on where you require metal detectors? An accurate quick shooter could kill more people at a suburban McDonalds during lunchtime than the movie killer did. So does that mean I should have to pass through a metal detector every time I get hungry for a Big Mac? No one on either side of the aisle would ever dream of imposing a mass of metal detectors at privately run businesses that would affect us in all walks of life every single day. Our entire life would be like a trip to the airport if there were metal detectors everywhere. It is a woefully inefficient idea that is completely impractical.

Say you put metal detectors in theaters. Great, now theaters are protected. But wait, a blood thirsty lunatic is just going to plan his attack elsewhere like at a mall. OK, so we can protect malls and impose metal detectors there too. Well, now the shooter is just going to try to light up a McDonalds instead since the malls are tightly protected. OK, that's fine. We can just have metal detectors at every McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's and Taco Bell in the entire country and no one will complain about that. Then I guess the shooter would just target a place like a gym or Wal-Greens. So let's make everyone who goes to Wall Greens go through a metal detector. I'm sure 90 year old women picking their prescriptions up wont' mind. See, pretty soon you will have created a society that is nothing but metal detectors and strip searches, which no longer even remotely resembles a free country with freedom of movement and liberty.

presto123

07-25-2012, 01:48 AM

A school is a place that the government forces children to attend up to a certain age. Most people go to public schools, and given that public schools are a publicly run entity, the people who run them can require metal detectors or whatever other policy they chose. That's fine. A school is a place you are forced to attend and by definition has rules and structure, so there is no problem with a place that bans a bunch of legal stuff from its premises requiring someone to be subjected to a search. You can't chew gum in school, so I don't think many people are going to complain about some metal detectors.

A privately run place like a theater OTOH is a completely different animal. It is a private business whose attendees are acting on free will. Where do you draw the line on where you require metal detectors? An accurate quick shooter could kill more people at a suburban McDonalds during lunchtime than the movie killer did. So does that mean I should have to pass through a metal detector every time I get hungry for a Big Mac? No one on either side of the aisle would ever dream of imposing a mass of metal detectors at privately run businesses that would affect us in all walks of life every single day. Our entire life would be like a trip to the airport if there were metal detectors everywhere. It is a woefully inefficient idea that is completely impractical.

Say you put metal detectors in theaters. Great, now theaters are protected. But wait, a blood thirsty lunatic is just going to plan his attack elsewhere like at a mall. OK, so we can protect malls and impose metal detectors there too. Well, now the shooter is just going to try to light up a McDonalds instead since the malls are tightly protected. OK, that's fine. We can just have metal detectors at every McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's and Taco Bell in the entire country and no one will complain about that. Then I guess the shooter would just target a place like a gym or Wal-Greens. So let's make everyone who goes to Wall Greens go through a metal detector. I'm sure 90 year old women picking their prescriptions up wont' mind. See, pretty soon you will have created a society that is nothing but metal detectors and strip searches, which no longer even remotely resembles a free country with freedom of movement and liberty.

That was my point when I posted that metal detectors will do very little if somebody has an agenda to kill.

spreedom

07-25-2012, 08:33 AM

I wasn't joking nor intended it to be funny. Terrible Parenting directly effects a child's ability to survive up to a certain age. If you don't keep a trigger lock on your firearm, then you shouldn't be surprised to find junior has blown his face off playing with your gun. And if that's the case you probably weren't fit to be a parent to begin with and the odds are against you raising a good upstanding citizen.

Sad but true, natural selection is a process of weeding out the gene pool of the least of its species part of that includes the ending of blood lines. Everyone gets offended when you personify that idea.

We are ending this line of discussion.

vapacersfan

07-25-2012, 08:43 AM

So hire more security, or at least put metal detectors in. We do that in schools for ****s sake, why not theaters?

They randomly had off duty officers at that theatre (obviously not the night of the shooting) and the police station is 2 blocks from the theatre

Since86

07-25-2012, 09:07 AM

Force them to buy weapons of mass murder through illegal means.

This is the case for the vast majority of guns used in murders already....

Kstat

07-25-2012, 10:52 AM

I wasn't joking nor intended it to be funny. Terrible Parenting directly effects a child's ability to survive up to a certain age. If you don't keep a trigger lock on your firearm, then you shouldn't be surprised to find junior has blown his face off playing with your gun. And if that's the case you probably weren't fit to be a parent to begin with and the odds are against you raising a good upstanding citizen.

Sad but true, natural selection is a process of weeding out the gene pool of the least of its species part of that includes the ending of blood lines. Everyone gets offended when you personify that idea.

We are ending this line of discussion.

graphic-er

07-25-2012, 12:31 PM

We are ending this line of discussion.

thewholefnshow31

07-25-2012, 12:42 PM

That was my point when I posted that metal detectors will do very little if somebody has an agenda to kill.

The idea of metal detectors would do anything to prevent someone from committing a crime like this is laughable. If they are wanting to shoot up a mall, movie theater, or other place they will just walk through the metal detector and blow people away. We are not dealing with a rational law abiding citizens here. If you are hell bent on slaughtering a bunch of people while they watch a damn good movie then you are going to find a way to do it.

Guns could have been completely illegal in this country and metal detectors everywhere and this guy might have been slowed down a bit, but he would have still got a hold of guns and shot up the place.

When you have bad people out there they are going to find a way to do bad things.

graphic-er

07-25-2012, 03:55 PM

The idea of metal detectors would do anything to prevent someone from committing a crime like this is laughable. If they are wanting to shoot up a mall, movie theater, or other place they will just walk through the metal detector and blow people away. We are not dealing with a rational law abiding citizens here. If you are hell bent on slaughtering a bunch of people while they watch a damn good movie then you are going to find a way to do it.

Guns could have been completely illegal in this country and metal detectors everywhere and this guy might have been slowed down a bit, but he would have still got a hold of guns and shot up the place.

When you have bad people out there they are going to find a way to do bad things.

Right on with this train of thought. Some people just live in an altruistic world where they think these major issues can be solved thru simple solutions. IE-lets ban all the guns or lets put up metal detectors and 3D xray scanners everywhere.

Stryder

07-25-2012, 06:24 PM

Anyone see that the shooter sent his plans, drawings, etc. ahead of time to A university psychiatrist?